What does the BUSN7052 final exam look like?

The final is an in-person exam with 2 hours writing plus 15 minutes reading. It uses hypothetical fact scenarios, has no multiple-choice questions and is worth 50%.

Which BUSN7052 topics recur most often in the supplied past finals?

The course guide reports that insurance contracts, Australian Consumer Law, negligence and trade marks appeared in all six supplied past finals from Semester 2 2021 to Semester 1 2025.

How should a BUSN7052 problem answer be structured?

Use IRAC: identify each issue, state the rule with a case or section, apply it to every relevant fact and both sides, then conclude on balance and state the remedy.

How much negligence analysis belongs in a mixed problem?

Keep it brief: move through duty, breach and causation with the key Civil Law (Wrongs) Act provisions, then spend time on the other issues carrying the factual weight.

Do the Australian Consumer Law and Sale of Goods Act apply together?

They can. The Sale of Goods Act covers a sale of goods for a price; the consumer guarantees additionally require consumer status under section 3, including checking the resupply and production exclusions.

BUSN7052 Cheatsheet · Commercial Law · ANU

Q: Can notes be used in the BUSN7052 final exam?

The ANU class summary states: The exam will be open book. No special equipment is required. Ebooks are not permitted.

BUSN7052

Commercial Law

Australian National University · postgraduate · OPEN-BOOK EXAM SHEET

Full guide + ask Sia
about BUSN7052

SIDE 1/2 ISSUE → RULE/AUTHORITY → APPLICATION → CONCLUSION/REMEDY 2 h writing · 15 min reading · hypotheticals · no MCQ S2 2026 · roadmap

1 · Exam Mapcourse.json · class summary

A1 10%A2 10%A3 30%FINAL EXAM 50%

Assignment 1 10% · Assignment 2 10% · Assignment 3 30% · Final Exam 50%

Permitted materials · verbatim“The exam will be open book. No special equipment is required. Ebooks are not permitted.” (ANU Class Summary, BUSN7052 Semester 2 2026)

Reading: mark parties, claims, chronology, jurisdiction and remedies; make a separate issue list for each party. Writing: allocate 120 minutes by marks.

Problem-question spine: state the authority briefly; spend the answer on fact-specific application and remedy.

2 · Authority Before MeritsCh 1–2

Trigger	Move
Federal power?	s 51 head; corporations s 51(xx), insurance s 51(xiv)
Interstate burden?	s 92: burden → discrimination → legitimate non-discriminatory purpose/proportionality; Cole v Whitfield; Palmer
Cth/State conflict?	s 109: Commonwealth prevails to inconsistency
ACT law?	territories power s 122; identify ACT statute

Precedent: ratio of higher court in same hierarchy binds; obiter and other-State cases persuade. ACT path: High Court → ACT Supreme Court → Magistrates Court; no intermediate court. Reverse = same case on appeal; overrule = replace earlier rule; distinguish = different material facts.

Legislation + delegated power

Route: cabinet approval → drafting/presentation → passage through both houses (ACT, NT and Queensland have one) → assent → commencement. Regulations, ordinances and by-laws must stay within the parent Act; an instrument outside power is ultra vires. In an exam, identify the empowering provision, compare the instrument with its purpose and scope, then ask whether parliamentary scrutiny or disallowance controls apply.

Statutory reading ladder

ordinary text, definitions and context;
choose the meaning best achieving purpose: s 15AA Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) / s 139 Legislation Act 2001 (ACT);
s 15AB extrinsic material to confirm meaning, cure ambiguity/obscurity or avoid manifest absurdity;

3 · Negligence ChainCh 3–4 · recurring

Do not merge breach and causation: a careless act may still fail the s 45 tests.

Issue	Rule + authority	Apply
Duty	Donoghue v Stevenson; established relationships; otherwise salient features (Caltex; Perre)	Foreseeability; vulnerability; D control; coherence/policy. Presumed: professional/client, employer/employee, teacher/student, road users, occupier/invitee, supplier/consumer (Modbury Triangle).
Breach	s 42 reasonable person in D’s position; s 43 calculus	Risk foreseeable + not insignificant; probability (Bolton), gravity (Paris), burden of precaution, social utility (Watt).
Damage	recognised loss	Name injury/property/economic loss; do not assume.

4 · Causation, Defences, AdviceCL(W)A ss 45–46, 95–96

Scope asks whether liability should extend to this kind of harm; s 45(2) preserves common-law principles.

Remoteness: kind of harm foreseeable (The Wagon Mound); exact manner need not be (Hughes); eggshell plaintiff means full extent once kind is foreseeable (Smith v Leech Brain). P bears proof: s 46.

Defence / issue	Effect / test
Contributory negligence	reduces damages; alcohol presumptions ss 95–96
Voluntary assumption	complete defence: P knew and freely accepted risk; ACT obvious-risk rules generally not a shortcut outside equine activities
Negligent misstatement	Evatt: speaker knows trusted for skill/info; knows statement will be acted on; reliance reasonable. Shaddock includes information; Esanda rejects indeterminate class.
Vicarious liability	employee acting in course of employment; identify status and connection

5 · Formation + ConsiderationCh 5

Formation gatesoffer + acceptance + consideration + intention + capacity + certainty

Postal rule only where post is invited; instantaneous acceptance generally takes effect on receipt.

Question	Rule / case
Offer?	objective commitment; displays usually invitation to treat (Boots); specific act-for-promise may be unilateral (Carlill).
Still open?	counter-offer kills original; reliable third-party notice revokes (Dickinson v Dodds); option needs consideration.
Acceptance?	match offer; silence cannot accept; conduct may (Brogden); reward act must be in reliance (R v Clarke).
Consideration?	Dunlop: from promisee; not past; sufficient, not adequate. Existing duty: Stilk/Hartley; practical benefit: Musumeci.

6 · Intention, Capacity, EstoppelCh 6

Argue both directions from seriousness, payment, formality, sacrifice and relationship; conclude objectively.

Capacity: adult presumed capable. Minor: necessaries at reasonable price; beneficial service contract unless unreasonable (De Francesco); continuing contract binds unless disowned; otherwise generally unenforceable against minor. Corporate capacity: s 124. Mental impairment/intoxication: show inability to understand plus other party’s knowledge.

Comparators: sacrifice supported intention in Todd v Nicol; a family business promise stayed informal in Woodward v Johnston. Electronic receipt generally controls; place of business may select jurisdiction.

Equitable estoppel · Waltons Stores v Maher

P assumed a legal relationship or future relationship;
D induced that assumption;
P acted or abstained in reliance;
D knew or intended that reliance;
P will suffer detriment if assumption denied;
D failed to avoid that detriment.

7 · Terms + Exclusion ClausesCh 7

Term factors: promissory words, importance, timing, special knowledge and omission from later writing.

Oscar Chess: “I believe” by less expert seller → representation. A collateral contract requires a promissory, consistent promise exchanged for entry into the main contract (JJ Savage; Van den Esschert).

Implied in fact: BP Refinery—reasonable/equitable; necessary; obvious; clear; consistent with express terms. Codelfa: necessity, not mere reasonableness.

Exclusion clause: two gates

Gate	Rule / authority
1 Incorporation	signature binds (L’Estrange; Toll) unless effect misrepresented (Curtis) or non est factum; unsigned term needs reasonable notice before formation.
2 Construction	clear words must cover this breach; contra proferentem; negligence rule (White v John Warwick); four-corners limits; Darlington.
3 Statute	ACL s 64 guarantees non-excludable; ACT SGA implied terms cannot be excluded.

8 · Consent, Discharge, RemediesCh 8–9

Trigger	Doctrine → result
false fact induces	misrepresentation; fraud = knowing/no belief/reckless → rescission + damages; innocent → rescission
shared/different/known error	common/mutual/unilateral mistake; value alone insufficient (Leaf); cross-purpose: Raffles
threat / trust	duress (Barton) / actual or presumed undue influence
known vulnerability exploited	Amadio: special disadvantage + knowledge + exploitation; contrast Kakavas

Frustration: unforeseen, no-fault supervening event; contract silent; performance impossible, illegal or radically different; unjust to hold parties.

Remedy trap Rescission restores the parties to their pre-contract positions. Fraudulent misrepresentation also supports damages; innocent misrepresentation at common law does not.

9 · Sale of Goods ActSGA 1954 (ACT) · Ch 10

Gateway s 6(1): movable goods for money. Excludes services, land, choses in action, barter and leases. Disc software = goods; paid download not (Gammasonics).

Section	Implied term + authority
s 17	right to sell; quiet possession; no undisclosed encumbrance — Rowland v Divall
s 18	goods correspond with description — Varley; Beale
s 19	merchantable quality; fitness where purpose disclosed + reliance; undisclosed abnormal sensitivity defeats fitness (Griffiths)
s 20	sale by sample

Property/risk: intention governs; unascertained goods cannot pass before ascertainment: s 21, Healy v Howlett. s 23 Rule 1: specific deliverable goods pass at contract despite postponed payment/delivery. Risk generally follows property.

Nemo dat s 26(1): non-owner gives no better title. Check estoppel; mercantile intermediary in possession s 26(2)(a), Folkes; court order; unavoided voidable title s 27; seller/buyer left in possession s 29. Then remedy: reject for condition, damages, recover price (s 57), or unpaid-seller rights.

10 · ACL Guarantees + ConductACL Sch 2 · Ch 11

Run both statutes where the transaction is a sale of goods and the buyer is also a consumer.

s 3 gateway: check price/ordinary personal, domestic or household acquisition; exclude resupply and goods used up/transformed in trade. ACL includes software (Valve). Goods guarantees: title ss 51–53; acceptable quality s 54; fitness s 55; description/sample ss 56–57; manufacturer obligations ss 58–59. Services: due care/skill s 60; fitness/result s 61; exclusions s 63.

Failure	Remedy
Major: s 260	reject and choose refund/replacement s 263; and/or damages s 259(3)–(4)
Not major	supplier may repair, replace, refund or cure title within reasonable time: ss 259(2), 261

s 18: trade/commerce conduct likely to lead relevant audience into error; context (Taco Bell); puffery permitted. Check specific false representation s 29. Run guarantees and misleading conduct separately. Product safety: ss 138–141 losses; s 142 defences; serious human injury/illness/death reporting within two days, ss 131–132.

11 · Insurance SpineICA 1984 (Cth) · Ch 12

Answer ordercover + causation → classify s 11AB → duty → breach → innocent/fraudulent → s 28 consequence → recovery

Classification determines whether the insured must volunteer information the insurer did not ask for.

Utmost good faith: s 13; consequences s 60(1)(a). For non-consumer disclosure, undisclosed change from storage to manufacturing increased fire risk: Alexander Stenhouse. Confirm event within cover and causation first (Leyland Shipping).

After payment	Rule
Subrogation	insurer sues wrongdoer in insured’s name: s 65; Castellan
Double insurance	claim from either insurer, never more than loss: s 76
Underinsurance	apply the policy proportion/average stated in facts

12 · Property, IP, AgencyCh 13 · recurring short issues

Armory protects finder against all but true owner; Parker asks whether occupier manifested control; items in land favour occupier (Elwes).

Issue	Fast rule
Fixture	degree + purpose of annexation; distinguish fitting/chattel on business sale
Trade mark	registered sign: ss 6, 17, 20; infringement requires use as a trade mark s 120; remedies s 126. If unregistered: passing off + ACL s 18.
Copyright	automatic; original expression, not idea; exclusive reproduction s 31(1), infringement s 36, remedies s 115. Ask human authorship/originality (Desktop Marketing; IceTV).
Agency	express grant → implied authority from role/circumstances → apparent authority from principal’s representation; principal estopped if third party relies on holding out.

BUSN7052

Commercial Law · Drills, Traps & Recall

Australian National University · postgraduate · OPEN-BOOK EXAM SHEET

Full guide + ask Sia
about BUSN7052

SIDE 2/2 FOUR HYPOTHETICAL DRILLS · EXAM TRAPS · FAST-RECALL TABLES IRAC / ILAC · apply every fact · finish with remedy S2 2026 · drills

13 · Writing Frame + TimingIRAC notes · exam format

IRAC / ILAC paragraphI Whether [party] can [claim/remedy] because [element]?
R/L Under [section], [test]; [case] establishes [single proposition].
A Here, [fact] supports… Conversely… Distinguish/analogise…
C On balance, likely/unlikely; therefore [remedy/defence].

15 min reading	120 min writing
circle verbs; list parties; number chronology; write issue + authority beside facts; flag competing statutes and remedies	budget by marks; one IRAC per issue; spend most time applying; leave a final check for omitted remedy/defence

Argue both sides where a fact admits competing characterisation. A different conclusion can be sound if every element is supported.

First rank the authority; only then apply its proposition.

Drill 1 · Courier Vanworked example · Ch 3

Facts: courier double-parks for 10 minutes on a narrow street, hazard lights on; legal loading zone 50 m away. Cyclist swerves and is hit.

I—duty: road users are an established duty category; cite Modbury Triangle list.
R—breach: s 42 reasonable courier; risk foreseeable/not insignificant; s 43 probability, gravity, burden, utility.
A: narrow street makes cyclist/oncoming collision foreseeable; serious harm; walking 50 m is cheap; hazard lights warn but do not remove obstruction; no competing utility shown.
C: duty likely breached. Then s 45: but for obstruction, would cyclist have swerved? Is this collision within the risk? Consider cyclist/car conduct for contribution or intervening act.

Trap “Illegal parking” is not itself the whole negligence analysis; connect the precaution to the harm.

Authority	Use in application
Bolton v Stone	very low probability and enormous precaution may justify inaction
Paris v Stepney	known vulnerability increases seriousness and required precaution
Watt v Hertfordshire	life-saving utility may justify greater risk

Drill 2 · Posted Acceptanceworked example · Ch 5

Facts: Canberra seller invites return-post acceptance. Buyer posts at 10 am Tuesday. Seller emails revocation at 2 pm; buyer reads it 3 pm. Letter arrives Thursday.

Adams v Lindsell: invited postal acceptance takes effect on posting; revocation must first reach the offeree.

I: Was there a contract before revocation?
R: postal rule applies because return post invited; acceptance at posting. Revocation is effective only on communication.
A: contract formed 10 am; even earliest email receipt at 2 pm is later. Thursday arrival is irrelevant.
C: binding contract from 10 am Tuesday; revocation fails.

Trap The postal rule does not make revocation effective when sent and does not govern email/telephone acceptance.

Formation & Intention TrapsCh 5–6

Ermogenous: context displaces rigid domestic/commercial presumptions.

Trap	Correction
shelf advert = offer	usually invitation to treat; customer offers at checkout (Boots)
“open until Friday” irrevocable	only if option supported by consideration
returned item earns unknown reward	act not in reliance on offer (R v Clarke)
family promise never binding	objective whole context; sacrifice may support intention (Todd v Nicol)
no consideration = no route	test Waltons estoppel if clear induced assumption + reliance/detriment

Exclusion clause speed-run

When formed? Fix contract time before asking whether notice arrived.
Signed? L’Estrange/Toll; test misdescription (Curtis) or non est factum.
Unsigned? Was reasonable notice given before formation, especially for an unusual clause?

Drill 3 · Café Grindercourse worked example

Facts: Nadia pays $2,800 for a commercial espresso grinder used in her café. It jams repeatedly within one month. Seller says all guarantees are excluded.

Start with the transaction gateway; then run the SGA and ACL in parallel if consumer status is established.

ACL s 3: $2,800 is below both figures recorded in the guide; Nadia buys to use, not resell or use up in production → likely consumer.
Guarantee: repeated jams after one month support unacceptable quality, s 54. Match SGA s 19 merchantable quality.
Exclusion: ineffective—ACL s 64; ACT SGA implied terms cannot be excluded.
Remedy: classify major under s 260. If major, reject and choose refund/replacement s 263; if not, supplier gets reasonable time to remedy under ss 259(2), 261.

Conclusion: likely consumer + s 54 and s 19 breach; exclusion fails; remedy turns on major failure.

Do not write “consumer law instead of SGA”; both can attach to one defective sale.

Consumer TrapsCh 11

Wrong shortcut	Correct move
cheap business input = consumer	resupply/use-up/transform exclusions still apply; café beans bought for use-up fall outside
supplier chooses remedy always	consumer chooses refund/replacement after major failure and rejection
s 18 needs a consumer	it regulates conduct in trade/commerce; analyse audience + likely error independently
product safety covers pet death	guide says provisions concern harm to humans

Misleading conduct mini-IRAC

Drill 4 · Home Contents Policyworked example · Ch 12

Facts: physiotherapist insures home contents. Form asks about burglaries; she answers truthfully. It does not ask about equipment; she does not mention $9,000 clinic gear stored at home. Burglary occurs.

Do not import the broader s 21 duty into a consumer insurance contract.

Cover first: policy wording may or may not cover business gear; keep separate.
Classify: home contents for household points to consumer insurance under s 11AB.
Duty: s 20B not to misrepresent, rather than s 21 disclosure.
Apply: truthful burglary answers; no equipment question; no apparent misrepresentation.
Conclusion: insurer’s “you should have volunteered it” invokes a duty she did not owe; actual cover remains open.

Insurance Trap Gridevery supplied past final

Trigger	Write
business policy	likely non-consumer → s 21 disclosure; do not default to s 20B
use changes after inception	Alexander Stenhouse: storage → manufacturing raised fire risk; non-disclosure
question answered falsely	breach; classify innocent s 28(3) / fraudulent s 28(2); state consequence supported by facts
wrongdoer caused loss	after payment, subrogation s 65
two policies	s 76: choose insurer, no double recovery

Finish Excellent insurance answers say what is recoverable, not merely which duty was breached.

Full claims sequence

Start with wording and causation (Leyland Shipping), then s 13 good faith. For non-consumer cover, s 21 reaches relevant unasked matters and changed use. Classify breach as innocent s 28(3) or fraudulent s 28(2); use the underwriting evidence—Lindsay is fact-sensitive. After payment, distinguish subrogation from s 76 double insurance.

Recovery: indemnity prevents profit; double insurance caps recovery at the loss; underinsurance uses the stated average/proportion.

14 · Contract Trap BankCh 7–9

Two yellow excavators, each party meaning a different one: mutual mistake; no objective agreement, as in Raffles.

Facts	Answer
retiree: “I believe 90,000 km”; written contract silent; dealer knows more	likely representation, not term: opinion words, month before, no special knowledge, omission; Oscar Chess
valet gives exclusion receipt after keys/payment	notice after formation → not incorporated
vulnerable parents guarantee child’s failing company; bank knows/exploits	Amadio unconscionability; prove all three elements
seller’s earlier statement later becomes false	silence exception: duty to correct, With v O’Flanagan
frustrating event merely makes bargain dearer	not enough; must become impossible/illegal/radically different; Codelfa

Performance Drillworked example · Ch 9

Caterer promises food for 100 guests at $6,000, supplies 85; client buys $400 pizzas; all food eaten. Exact performance is usual (Re Moore; Landauer), but accepted substantial performance is arguable. Client pays $6,000 − $400 = $5,600, rather than nothing.

Classify the term and consequences before announcing termination.

Remedy checks: expectation/reliance; Hadley remoteness; mitigation. ACT frustration releases future duties; past losses remain unless consideration totally fails.

Discharge classifier

Route	Exam test
Performance	exact; then trifling defect, accepted substantial performance, prevention or divisible bargain
Agreement	term, mutual termination, release, waiver, novation
Breach	condition; repudiation; serious intermediate breach; warranty → damages only
Frustration	unforeseen no-fault event; contract silent; impossible, illegal or radically different

15 · Property + IP Drill BankCh 13 · recurring

Buried 40 cm gold coin: item is in land, so homeowner outranks landscaper finder (Elwes), subject to true owner.

Hypothetical cue	Issues + authority
cleaner finds valuable item while clearing rubbish	found in course of employment → employer; Wiley v Synan; Byrne v Horne; still seek true owner
item loose on public lounge/shop floor	Parker: occupier beats finder only if prior manifested control
fan prints registered band logo on unsold home shirt	s 120 requires use as trade mark; likely not; still test copyright artistic work
copied unregistered trading name	passing off + ACL s 18; audience and likely deception
text produced without human author	copyright originality/human authorship issue: Desktop Marketing; IceTV
employee sells beyond internal limit but title/card says salesperson	implied authority may suffice; otherwise principal’s representation → apparent authority/estoppel

16 · One-Line Authority Bankfast recall

Authority	Proposition
Cole v Whitfield	s 92 targets discriminatory interstate burdens
Wormald v Caftor	purpose/extrinsic speech; “household” humans, not pets
Bolton v Stone	tiny probability + heavy precaution → no breach
Paris v Stepney	known vulnerability raises gravity/precaution
Wagon Mound	foreseeable kind of harm
Ermogenous	objective intention from whole context
Codelfa	implied term needs necessity; frustration radically different
Taco Bell	s 18 misleading is factual and contextual
Alexander Stenhouse	undisclosed change of use increased fire risk
Armory / Parker / Elwes	finder title / occupier control / item in land

Last 90 Secondssubmission check

Every issue has an authority; every authority has one proposition.
Every statutory claim starts at its gateway and ends at remedy.
Negligence has separate duty, breach, damage and causation.
Consumer status comes before guarantees; insurance classification before duty.