This is a task in which you will perform research online relating to foreign and local business structures and make a post on an online forum for discussion by other students. You will also be expected to perform research on at least two other students' posts and post comments upon them. Detailed requirements for this assessment task will be presented on the Moodle site at the beginning of term.

The 10 marks will be separately allocated for your original submission and for your comments on other students' submissions, so you must complete both aspects to get full marks. Six (6) marks will be allocated to your original contribution and any further discussion flowing from it, and two (2) marks each will be available for your comments on other students' contributions.

Marks for your contributions and comments will be awarded based on:

1. The quality of your research (including referencing);

2. The logical quality of your argument;

3. The insightfulness/originality of your observations, arguments and comments;

4. The clarity of your presentation.

There is no specific weighting of marks for each of these items, as shortfalls in one criterion may be compensated by strengths in another. The exact balance of research, logical argument and insight/originality expected will depend on the overall nature of the contribution/comment.

Detailed information about this assessment task will be provided on the Moodle site at the beginning of the term.

The assignment will involve a number of tasks:

1. Studying and researching business structures under Australian law;

2. Thinking about how that law impacts real life decisions about business structures;

3. Thinking about what facts you would need to learn from a client in order to advise on an appropriate business structure;

4. Explaining to your (imaginary) supervising partner how you would use those facts to advise a client, and how differing facts would affect your advice;

5. Conducting an interview with a real life (pretend) client and reporting on that interview.

The submission will involve the following parts and sub-parts:

Part A (20 marks) – Written report to the supervising partner pre-interview (1,500 words)

This written report will have three sections:

(a) A description of the law that you think would be relevant to someone deciding on the appropriate business structure (10 marks);

(b) An explanation of why you think that law is relevant to the client’s decision (5 marks); and

(c) An explanation of the information you require from the client to give the advice and to make a recommendation (5 marks).

Part B (10 marks) – Written report to supervising partner post-interview (maximum 800 words).

A written report on the interview with the client, containing the following sections:

(a) A summary of the information that you extracted from the client (5 marks); and

(b) A summary of how you advised the clients, what recommendations you made and why (5 marks).

The allocation of marks is shown in the task description above. The marking criteria, and the aspects of the task to which they relate, are as follows:

1. The quality of your research (Part A, sub-part (a). For this sub-part, the quality of the research will also take into account proper referencing);

2. The depth of your thinking about the real life issues (Part A, sub-parts (b) and (c); Part B, sub-part (b));

3. The insightfulness/originality of your observations, arguments and comments (Part A, sub-parts (b) and (c); Part B, sub-part (b));

4. The clarity of your presentation (all sub-parts).

NOTE:

Apart from Criterion 4 (clarity of presentation):

• Criterion 1 is the only criterion for Part A, sub-part (a);
• Criteria 2 and 3 are the only criteria for Part A, sub-parts (b) and (c), and Part B, sub-part (b). Criteria 2 and 3 are part of a single concept and will not be allocated marks separately.

For Part A and Part B, sub-part (b), Criterion 4 (clarity of presentation) will be taken into account as a deduction if the presentation is poor.  It will not have a separate mark allocation.

For Part B, sub-part (a), Criterion 4 (clarity of presentation) is the only criterion. It will take into account both written presentation to the supervising partner and whether your presentation was sufficient to extract the information required in Part A, sub-part (c).