ACCT 3151 Business Law First Assignment (25%) Instructions: 1. 2. 3. 4. Answer all questions and sub-questions below.

Please observe the word limits as indicated for each question and subquestion. You are advised to do research when answering questions. Please support your answers with relevant court cases and materials. You are required to comply with the rule of academic honesty. You must acknowledge the source of ideas that you have referred to and cannot copy, word by word, from works of others. You may submit a group assignment. Each group shall consist of no more than 5 students. You may form a group with fellow students of other classes. All the students in a group will be awarded the same mark. You may also do the assignment by yourself and submit your answers individually. The due date of this assignment is 26/10/2012 (by 5:00pm) (Friday of the 7th teaching week). You are required to submit the assignment electronically by http://www.cuhk.edu.hk/veriguide. Only one student of a group has to submit the assignment (if you submit a group assignment). You would get a receipt after you have done so. Kindly then fix the receipt on the hard copy of your assignment and submit the assignment to the assignment collection box marked with ACCT3151 at level 2, CYT Building.

5.

6. 7.

Question One (10 Marks) (word limits: up to 1,500 words) Read Fateh Muhammad v Commissioner of Registration [2001] 2 HKLRD 659 which can be found in the westlaw HK website of our library database in which there is a summary of what the court said (as for how to find court cases from the websites, see course materials topic 1). Article 24(4) of the Basic Law defines the permanent residents of the Hong Kong SAR to include Persons not of Chinese nationality who have entered Hong Kong with valid travel documents, have ordinarily resided in Hong Kong for a continuous period of not less than seven years and have taken Hong Kong as their place of permanent residence before or after the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. In this case, the Court of Final Appeal held that generally being in prison due to conviction for a crime did not constitute ordinary residence within article 24(4) of the Basic Law. In addition, the seven continuous year had to be immediately before the application for permanent residence.

Answer, in your own words, the following questions: 1. Explain how the Court of Final Appeal arrived at the above conclusion. 2. The Court of Final Appeal mentioned, at pp.665-666, that a purposive approach had to be adopted in understanding article 24(4) of the Basic Law. What does it mean by the purposive approach of interpretation of a constitutional document? Read Ng Ka Ling v Director of Immigration (No 2) [1999] 1 HKLRD 315 (pp.339-340 only) in answering this question. 3. The Court of Final Appeal mentioned, at p.663, a de minimis principle in counting the period of ordinary residence. What does it mean by the de minimis principle? Read Prem Singh v Director of Immigration [2003] 1 HKLRD 550 (paras.67-76 only) in answering this question. Ng Ka Ling v Director of Immigration (No 2) [1999] 1 HKLRD 315 and Prem Singh v Director of Immigration [2003] 1 HKLRD 550 can also be found in the westlaw HK website of our library database. Question Two (15 marks) Part A (9 marks) (word limits: up to 1,500) On 3 January, Eric sent a fax message to George, which stated, Would you buy my book (title stated) at $100? Write a letter to tell me your decision by 10th January. On 10th January, George wrote a letter to Eric saying that he (George) would buy the book. In fact, on 9 January, Eric sent a letter telling George that all his three copies had been sold. Eric received Georges letter on 12th January, but refused to sell the book to George. On 4 January Eric sent a fax message to James, which stated, My book (title stated) is now for sale at $100. It is very useful for passing the CPA examination. You must not ignore my message! Write a letter to me by 10th January or the sale price will rise from $100 to $120 after 11 January. Eric has three copies of the same book. On 10th January, James left a phone message for Eric saying that he (James) would buy the book. Eric heard this message on the same day. He immediately left a phone message for James saying, you will be delivered the book in due course. James noticed the phone message but he did not listen to it until 12th January. On 11th January, Eric informed James that the price of the book would be increased from $100 to $120. When James raised his objection to the increase of price, Eric told James that he (Eric) would not sell the book to James any more. Discuss whether George and James can sue Eric for breach of contract. In your discussion, please state any additional information you need to know to answer the question.

Part B (6 marks) (word limits: up to 1,200) Wilburn and David are brothers. They are both lawyers and they work in the same law firm. On one occasion, David gave legal advice to a client on behalf of Wilburn (the boss of the law firm instructed Wilburn to give legal advice to the client) as David knew that Wilburn was very busy in his work (the legal advice was given correctly). When Wilburn knew about this later, he happily promised to give a law book (title mentioned) to David. Wilburn never gave David the law book, however. Joanne is a professional badminton player and she has to participate in the coming Olympics games for Hong Kong as well as for her employer. She is paid a fixed salary per month by her employer. Before she was about to participate in the Olympics games, her employer informed her that she could get an award of $50,000 if she could enter the finals of the badminton competition. Joanne later entered the finals of the badminton competition but she was never paid the $50,000. Discuss whether David can claim the law book from Wilburn and whether Joanne can claim the $50,000 from her employer.

END -