LLB301 Assignment 2 Feedback The average performance in this piece of assessment was good. Across this cohort, it is clear that you have taken on board feedback from your first two years of law subjects. The vast majority of assignments showed both an understanding of this area of law, and an understanding of what a legal memorandum requires. It is pleasing to see that students are incorporating feedback into their work, and improving throughout their degree. The average mark for the assignment was 21.5, which is quite good, especially considering that the highest mark was 28. The vast majority of students have taken on board the fact that good legal writing is as clear, simple and to the point as possible. What separates out the better marks from the others is how successfully this was done. Please have a look at the example answers that we provide to see the sorts of ways you can say things as simply and correctly as possible. Many students, even those who otherwise did very well, had difficulty in consistently getting their use of apostrophes correct. It may seem picky, but apostrophe errors are actually a big deal. Most people that you would be preparing memoranda for will know the rules of apostrophes perfectly. For them, any error at all in their use stands out, and looks shoddy and unprofessional. Also, remember that one of the qualities that anyone would look for in a lawyer is attention to detail. Therefore, it is essential that you get those little things right. A number of students misspelled 'Piers' at various times. Again, attention to detail is crucial, and getting party names consistently correct is a very important part of that. Answer outline Part 1 Question 1 David's interest is registered. That means he is only bound by other registered interests, unless an exception to indefeasibility applies: s184 LTA. Celia, Piers and Justin's interests are not registered. Therefore, David can only be compelled to honour them if an exception to indefeasibility applies. Celia Leases of three years or less are exceptions to indefeasibility: s 185(1)(b), Sch 2 Definition of 'short lease'. Short leases are legal interests. Before Celia exercised her option, the original lease plus the option exceeded 3 years, so the option would not fall under the short lease exception: Re Eastdoro Pty Ltd (No 2) 1 Qd R 424. However, when an option to renew is taken, it operates as a fresh lease: Re Eastdoro Pty Ltd. Therefore, Celia's current lease fits the definition of a short lease, and therefore is an exception to indefeasibility. This means David will be bound by Celia's lease, and must honour it. Fraud is also an exception to indefeasibility s184(3)(b). Fraud is not defined in the legislation. It requires 'personal dishonesty or moral turpitude': Assets Co v Mere Roihi. David knew about Celia's interest, but this alone cannot establish fraud: s184(2)(b). Fraud could be established if David dishonestly promised to protect Celia's interest in order to induce the transfer