BTF5955 · Business and Company Law
The Complete Exam Bible · S2 2026Business and Company Law
BTF5955 Business and Company Law is a Monash University postgraduate coursework unit taught by the Monash Business School's Department of Business Law and Taxation, and it teaches the law a manager, accountant or founder must work inside — contract, negligence, consumer law and the whole of company law — through the discipline of the IRAC method (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) and AGLC4 citation. It is a method unit, not a memorise-the-doctrine unit: the marks live in applying the right case and the right Corporations Act section to unfamiliar facts. Monash assesses BTF5955 through three components — a Reflective Assessment worth 20%, a Take-Home Assessment worth 30% (two problem scenarios on negligence and contract, argued in IRAC with case and statute law), and a Final Examination worth 50%. The final is OPEN BOOK, hard-copy materials only — the prescribed text is recommended in hard copy for exactly this reason — and it covers Topics 1–12 EXCEPT liquidation, which is expressly non-examinable. The 2026 Monash Handbook records no threshold hurdle on any component, so your grade is the weighted total (HD is 80 and above, then D, C, P, with N a fail), and your BTF5955 result feeds the WAM that later postgraduate units build on. The unit runs in Semester 2, 2026 at Caulfield, with the final exam held in the Monash Semester-2 examination period around November 2026 — confirm the exact date, duration and permitted materials on Moodle and the Monash exam timetable, because the schedule dates come from an earlier cohort.
What BTF5955 covers
BTF5955 Business and Company Law is assessed through a Reflective Assessment (20%), a Take-Home Assessment (30%) of two IRAC problems on negligence and contract law, and one open-book, hard-copy-only Final Examination worth 50% — IRAC problem questions across Topics 1–12, with liquidation expressly NOT examinable. This thirteen-chapter map follows the Monash topic schedule from the Australian legal system and the IRAC method, through negligence, contract and consumer law, into the company-law half — incorporation and business structures, corporate governance, members' powers and dividends, directors' duties (split across Part 1 and Part 2) and external administration — and closes with an exam-technique chapter for the open-book final. Use it to see which case and which Corporations Act section anchors each doctrine so you can find and apply it fast from your hard-copy notes.
How BTF5955 is assessed
| Component | Weight | Format |
|---|---|---|
| Reflective Assessment | 20% | Written — reflect on an article/case summary from the topics, applying legal knowledge; AGLC4 referencing; GenAI permitted subject to task rules |
| Take-Home Assessment | 30% | Written — two problem-based scenarios on negligence + contract law, discussed with case and statute law via the IRAC method; AGLC4 referencing |
| Final Examination | 50% | Open book — hard-copy materials only; IRAC problem questions across Topics 1–12 EXCEPT liquidation; duration/sections confirm on Moodle |
IRAC on a negligence scenario: is the café liable for the slip?
- +1Issue. Frame the precise question: is the café liable to Priya in the tort of negligence — that is, are all four elements (duty of care, breach, causation and damage) made out, and does any defence reduce or defeat the claim? Naming the four-element structure up front is what a marker rewards.
- +1Rule — duty. A defendant owes a duty of care where harm to the plaintiff is reasonably foreseeable and the salient features support a duty (Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 — the neighbour principle). Occupier-to-entrant is an established duty category, so an occupier owes a duty to lawful visitors.
- +2Rule — breach, causation, damage. Breach is judged against the standard of the reasonable person using the calculus of negligence — probability of harm, likely seriousness, burden of precautions and social utility (Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40; Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) s 48). Causation uses the 'but for' test plus scope of liability (Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) s 51), and the damage must be a reasonably foreseeable kind of loss.
- +1Application — duty. The café is the occupier and Priya is a paying customer (a lawful entrant), so this falls squarely within the established occupier–entrant category. It is reasonably foreseeable that a customer could slip on a wet floor, so the café owed Priya a duty of care.
- +1Application — breach. Run the Wyong calculus: the probability of a slip on unmarked wet tiles in a busy café is real, the likely harm (a fall) is moderately serious, and the burden of precaution — placing a warning sign or cordoning the area — is trivially low. A reasonable occupier would have taken that cheap precaution, so leaving the floor wet and unmarked falls below the standard of care and is a breach.
- +1Application — causation, damage and defence. 'But for' the wet, unmarked floor Priya would not have slipped, so factual causation is met, and a fractured wrist with medical costs and lost income is a reasonably foreseeable kind of harm (not too remote). Consider contributory negligence: Priya was watching the counter rather than her feet, so a court may find she failed to take reasonable care for her own safety and apportion (reduce) her damages, but on these facts her carelessness is modest against an unmarked hazard.
- +1Conclusion. All four elements are made out — duty (occupier–entrant), breach (no warning sign despite a cheap precaution), causation ('but for') and reasonably foreseeable damage — so the café is very likely liable in negligence. Priya's damages may be reduced somewhat for contributory negligence, but liability is established.
Key terms
- IRAC method
- The four-step legal-analysis structure the unit drills and the exam rewards: Issue (the precise legal question), Rule (the governing case ratio and/or statute), Application (argue the rule against the facts, both sides), Conclusion (a reasoned, often tentative, answer). Introduced in Topic 1 and used in the Take-Home and the final exam.
- Duty of care (neighbour principle)
- The first element of negligence: a defendant must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions reasonably foreseeable as likely to injure their 'neighbour' — persons so closely and directly affected (Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562). Modern Australian law adds the salient features (vulnerability, control, proximity) and established duty categories.
- Consideration
- In contract formation, the 'price' of a promise — a bargained-for exchange of benefit or detriment. It must be sufficient but need not be adequate, must move from the promisee, and past consideration is not good consideration. One of the elements a court checks before a simple contract binds.
- Separate legal entity (Salomon)
- On registration a company becomes a legal person distinct from its members and directors (Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22; Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 124). Consequences: limited liability, perpetual succession, the company owns its own property and may sue and be sued in its own name. Courts occasionally lift the corporate veil for fraud, sham or under statute.
- Directors' duties (ss 180–184)
- The core statutory duties owed to the company under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth): care and diligence (s 180, with the s 180(2) business-judgment rule), good faith and proper purpose (s 181), no improper use of position (s 182) or information (s 183), and the criminal offences for dishonest or reckless breach (s 184). General-law fiduciary duties run in parallel.
- Misleading or deceptive conduct (ACL s 18)
- Under s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law (Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)), a person must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive. It is strict (no intention required); the test is the effect on the ordinary/reasonable target audience. Regulator: the ACCC.
BTF5955 FAQ
Is BTF5955 hard?
It is demanding in a particular way. The volume of black-letter rules is broad — contract, negligence, consumer law and the whole of company law — but the real challenge is applying a method rather than reciting content: reading facts, framing the issue, picking the right case or Corporations Act section, and arguing it in IRAC under time pressure. Students who practise the IRAC technique on the weekly (non-graded) practice quizzes and seminar problems, rather than cramming through SWOTVAC, generally find it manageable. There is no threshold or competency hurdle on any component in the 2026 Monash Handbook, and the open-book final rewards a well-tabbed hard-copy index over rote memorisation.
Can AI help me with BTF5955?
Yes, as a study aid. Sia is an AI tutor trained on how BTF5955 is actually taught and assessed: it can walk you through an IRAC negligence or contract problem step by step, show which Corporations Act section anchors a directors'-duties issue, unpack the difference between a condition and a warranty, or check whether your AGLC4 citations are formatted correctly. It explains the method and checks your reasoning; it does NOT do graded assessment for you, and Monash University academic-integrity rules apply. Generative AI is permitted in the Reflective and Take-Home tasks subject to the per-task rules and acknowledgement in the unit guide — confirm those rules on Moodle before you rely on any AI tool.
Where can I find past exam papers / practice for BTF5955?
Start on Moodle and in the Monash Library exam-paper collection, where the unit posts its official practice material and any released past papers; your seminar problems, the weekly practice quizzes and the Take-Home task are the closest match to the exam's IRAC style. This guide also includes a re-authored practice exam that mirrors the final's shape — IRAC problem questions across negligence, contract, consumer law and company law, with liquidation left out because it is non-examinable — and you can ask Sia to build extra practice questions in the same style and then explain each step. Treat any third-party 'model answers' with caution and confirm what is officially provided on Moodle and in the unit guide.
Does BTF5955 have a hurdle, and how is it assessed?
There is no hurdle. The 2026 Monash Handbook records no threshold or competency hurdle and no minimum-mark requirement on any component, so your final grade is simply the weighted total of three tasks: a Reflective Assessment (20%), a Take-Home Assessment (30%) of two IRAC problems on negligence and contract, and a Final Examination (50%). Grades band as HD (80 and above), then D, C, P, with N a fail. The weekly practice quizzes are a learning mechanism only and are NOT part of your assessment. What still bites is the generic Monash late-penalty procedure and AGLC4 referencing requirements — confirm the exact weightings, due dates and rules on Moodle and in your unit guide.
Is the BTF5955 final exam open or closed book?
It is OPEN BOOK — but hard-copy materials only (no electronic materials). The prescribed textbook is recommended in hard copy specifically because of this. The exam covers Topics 1–12 EXCEPT liquidation, which is expressly non-examinable, and asks IRAC problem questions cited in AGLC4. The duration, number of sections and mark allocation are not published in the available unit material, and the exam sits in the Monash Semester-2 examination period around November 2026 — confirm the exact date, duration and permitted materials on Moodle and the Monash exam timetable before the day.
How to study for the exam
Treat BTF5955 as a set of reusable IRAC techniques rather than a body of doctrine to memorise, and rehearse them weekly on the seminar problems and the non-graded practice quizzes rather than banking on a SWOTVAC cram. Build three habits. First, for every topic learn the map from doctrine to authority: which landmark case (Donoghue v Stevenson, Carlill v Carbolic, Salomon v Salomon, Hadley v Baxendale) and which Corporations Act section (s 124, s 140, s 180, s 254T, s 588G, s 435A) anchors each rule, so you can find and apply it fast. Second, write every problem answer in a visible IRAC skeleton — name the issue, state the rule with its source, apply it fact-by-fact arguing both sides, then conclude tentatively — because that structure is what the Take-Home and exam reward, and the marks live in the Application, not in reciting the rule. Third, prepare for the open-book, hard-copy-only final by building a tabbed index of your cases and sections rather than trying to memorise them, and remember liquidation is expressly NOT examinable, so spend your revision on the examinable Topics 1–12. Keep your AGLC4 footnoting clean from the first draft, confirm the exam date and permitted materials on Moodle, and remember there is no hurdle — the grade comes from consistent, well-structured application. When a step won't click, ask Sia to explain that single step a different way and to set you a fresh practice problem in the same style; it teaches the method and checks your reasoning, and it never substitutes for your own graded work.
Your AI Business Law tutor for BTF5955
Stuck on a hard BTF5955 question? Sia is AskSia’s AI Business Law tutor — ask any BTF5955 Business and Company Law question and get a clear, step-by-step explanation grounded in how the course is actually taught and assessed. Read this whole study guide free, then take your hardest questions to Sia.
