List the characteristics of what would be considered to be a good legal system. Give an example of an actual law which you would consider fulfils the requirements of ‘good law’.
ANSWER: ** Answer box will enlarge as you type
Part B – Case Studies / Problem-type questions (30 marks)
Instructions: Your answers must be supported by legal reasoning and case law or legislation in order to gain a passing grade.
Question 2 (10 marks)
Belinda wants to buy a second-hand car and visits a number of car dealers before deciding to purchase an as new 1998 Ford Mustang from American Car Sales. The sales person, Jaxson, tells Belinda that the car was manufactured in 1998 and had only done 54,000 kms.
Three months later, Belinda has the Mustang serviced with her local mechanic who was a Mustang enthusiast. He comments on the fact that the car was in pretty good condition for a 1994 Mustang, though he was surprised that it had only done 54,000 kms. He would not have been surprised if it had done 100,000 kms.
Belinda makes further inquiries and discovers that the Mustang was in fact made in 1994 and she has paid about $5,000 more than the actual market value of the car. Belinda intends to approach American Car Sales about this issue.
Does Belinda have any contractual rights against American Car Sales?
You are expected to discuss legal rules learned regarding terms of a contract, in particular statements and representations, and conditions and warranties.
Do not answer this question based on Australian Consumer Law principles. No credit will be given if you do so.
Question 3 (10 marks)
A news story from 2017 reported that Sydney woman was hospitalised after glass found in takeaway coffee.
According to the report, the woman, 39 year-old Natalie Grabowski, was hospitalised with internal bleeding after swallowing glass she believes was in the ice served with her takeaway iced coffee at a popular inner-west cafe.
She had bought the cold brew coffee from BrewCity Redfern on Redfern’s O’Connell St one Sunday morning earlier this month. On taking her first gulp of the iced coffee, Natalie felt something scratch her throat. According to her, it felt “hard and sharp, and just not right.” She then spat out the small pieces of ice she had not yet swallowed, and rolled them in her fingers trying to figure out what was wrong. One of the pieces wasn’t melting and cut her finger. She then realised it was actually a small piece of sharp glass.
Later that morning, she felt suddenly sick. Things didn’t look right when she went to the toilet. Colleagues called an ambulance which transported Natalie to the nearest surgical hospital.
After two days of “humiliating” tests and procedures, much of that time spent in discomfort and pain, Natalie was discharged without having to go under the knife.
Medical reports said she had suffered rectal bleeding after ingesting the piece of glass. The distressed coffee lover said while her injuries seem to have passed, she feels like the incident will affect her forever.
a) What elements must Natalie prove to be able to succeed in an action in negligence against the coffee shop? Identify and briefly explain each element. (3 mark)
b) Apply each element to the facts of this case and determine whether Natalie will be successful in her negligence claim. (7 marks)
*** Do not answer these questions based on any principles of Australian Consumer Law. No credit will be given if you do so.
Question 4 (10 marks)
Carlos went to a fish shop and asked for 1 kilo of two fresh prawns for dinner. The fish shop owner explained that he had no fresh prawns but that he had some boiled ones, which he sold to Carlos. It turned out that the prawns weren’t fresh and Carlos, after eating them, became seriously ill.
a) Does Carlos have any action open to him against the fish shop under the Australian Consumer Law? You must specify which sections of the ACL apply to this case. (2 marks)
b) What does Carlos need to prove to succeed in claiming against the fish shop based on Australian Consumer Law? (8 marks)
*** Do not answer these questions based on any principles of Contract Law. No credit will be given if you do so.
Part C – Critical Thinking (10 marks)
If the directors of a company make a decision, which later on proves not to be a good decision and causes the company to lose money, will the directors be liable for failure to exercise their duty of care and diligence?
END OF SUPPLEMENTARY ASSESSMENT