1: Tell me about a past work situation where you were asked to follow specific rules and guidelines. What was the situation?
• What did you (and others) think about the rules and processes?
• Tell me about a rule you didn’t agree with. What did you do?
• Describe your role in ensuring others followed the process.
2: Tell me about a time when you were asked to set an aggressive goal that you could not achieve on your own. What was the goal you set and the situation?
• What plans did you put in place to achieve the goal?
• Who did you involve and why?
• How did you ensure others knew what outcome was expected?
3: Give me several examples from your recent work experience in which you improved something to make it better.
• Why did you think it needed to be improved?
• How did you determine what to do differently?
• Who did you involve in this process?
4: Give me some examples of what you have done in your professional life to improve and grow yourself.
• Why have you pursued these things?
• How did you measure improvement?
5: Give me an example of a time when you experienced a sustained growth in a particular area (product line, business unit, year over year sales, etc.).
• How did you do this?
• How long did it take? Did it last?
• How did you determine what to focus on?
6: Please study this scenario and tell me what you would do:
Your store has not yet met your expected growth rate, and you are not making the profits that you anticipated. Your Field Consultant has provided you with feedback that your mystery shopper customer numbers in your Guest Experience Evaluation are below the 7-Eleven average.
What would you do?
• What areas will you focus on?
• How long do you expect it to take?
• What types of things would you invest in?
n the other hand, in Lott v Angelucci, the complainant sold the property worth $54,000 for $ 35,000 to the enforcer for the consideration of the help given by the enforcer over years was held to be a fair bargain. Likewise, in Knupp v Bell, the court took into account of the relationship of the parties which is as neighbours and friends and held that the slight undervalue is acceptable. Similarly, in Haverty v Brooks, although the complainant could have sold the property at a higher price, the court held that the transaction was not manifestly unfair as it was the complainant himself who trusted the enforcer that the enforcer will be paying the installments of the purchase price on time so that he could have the payment as his pension and keep secret from his relatives. From the above cases, it is clear that the imbalance or unfairness needs to be manifest to satisfy the requirement of contractual imbalance. The court will take into account of other factors and considerations to determine whether the consideration given is insufficient to the extent that the requirement of contractual imbalance is satisfied. 3.5 Failure to rebut the presumption of unconscionability When all the 4 elements discussed above are satisfied, the presumption that unconscionability is established. The burden is then shifted to the enforcer to rebut the presumption. Failure to do so leads to the establishment of unconscionability. This is shown in the cases below. In the case of Valta v Valta, even though the 4 elements are fulfilled, the enforcer was able to show that the complainant had obtained an independent advice which was appropriate and thus the court held that the bargain which was not too improvident, was not unconscionable. As a comparison, in Fry v Lane, the court held that the transaction was unconscionable because the solicitor did not inform the complainant about the nature and effect of the transaction. The 2 most common grounds used to rebut the presumption of unconscionability are the recommendation of independent advice to the complainant and the full disclosure of the material facts and consequence to the complainant. As for recommendation of independent advice, some cases suggest that the enforcer should go to the extent of insisting the complainant to obtain an independent advice and refuse to continue with the transaction until the complainant had done so. This can be sad seen in the case of Knupp v Bell and Harris v Richardson . Another ground that may be used by the enforcer to rebut the presumption unconscionability is the disclosure of material facts and nature of the transaction. This can be seen in the case of Cresswell v Potter, where Justice Megarry said that it would not be difficult for the enforcer to send a cover letter to the complainant to disclose about the consequence of the transaction. Likewise, in Pridmore v Calvert, the court held that the experienced party should explain the nature of a bargain to the persons who are inexperienced and ignorant in that particular area, which is the area of insurance and indemnity law in this case. Similarly, in CBA v Amadio, the court held that the bank was guilty of an unconscionable conduct by entering into the transaction without disclosing important facts which may cause the complainant to change their mind and without ensuring that they obtained an independent advice. 3.6 Conclusion for elements>GET ANSWER