Case help - Balmain New Ferry Co (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter paper cup
- Start date
Soma
Toney Starks Fanboy
Re: Balmain - propositions of law
From a contracts perspective it deals with whether the notice of the wall becomes part of the contract.
You will look at factors such as was it reasonable to have expected it to be contractual in nature, was it sufficiently conveyed to the party e.t.c.
I think this is also relevant to other areas of law in that it talked about unlawful imprisonment, however I assume this has just arisen in your contracts class?
P.S. I am happy to help but a general request to summarise the case kind of irks me. If people don't understand it they should first read it, read about it in a textbook and then if they are unclear on any specific issues perhaps comer here and see if someone can help. Noone is going to write out an essay answer for you.
From a contracts perspective it deals with whether the notice of the wall becomes part of the contract.
You will look at factors such as was it reasonable to have expected it to be contractual in nature, was it sufficiently conveyed to the party e.t.c.
I think this is also relevant to other areas of law in that it talked about unlawful imprisonment, however I assume this has just arisen in your contracts class?
P.S. I am happy to help but a general request to summarise the case kind of irks me. If people don't understand it they should first read it, read about it in a textbook and then if they are unclear on any specific issues perhaps comer here and see if someone can help. Noone is going to write out an essay answer for you.
neo o
it's coming to me...
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2002
- Messages
- 3,294
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2004
Re: Balmain - propositions of law
I can only give you what's in my notes (which I think you have) but this quote pretty much sums it up.
“It is clear that the invitation which the defendants offered to members of the public to come upon their premises was conditional, and it must be taken that members of the public, who availed themselves of this permission, agreed to be bound by the terms upon which it was granted so far as they were acquainted with them.” Griffith CJ.'
I believe another judge drew an analogy between this and a passenger wanting to be let off a train at a stop that they knew before boarding it wouldn't stop at.
PS: I don't think that you will need to know this for your exam - at least last year we weren't tested on false impisonment in the final.
I can only give you what's in my notes (which I think you have) but this quote pretty much sums it up.
“It is clear that the invitation which the defendants offered to members of the public to come upon their premises was conditional, and it must be taken that members of the public, who availed themselves of this permission, agreed to be bound by the terms upon which it was granted so far as they were acquainted with them.” Griffith CJ.'
I believe another judge drew an analogy between this and a passenger wanting to be let off a train at a stop that they knew before boarding it wouldn't stop at.
PS: I don't think that you will need to know this for your exam - at least last year we weren't tested on false impisonment in the final.
Last edited:
MoonlightSonata
Retired
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2002
- Messages
- 3,645
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- N/A
This case is pertinent in two areas: torts and contracts.paper cup said:
In torts, it discusses the extent of false imprisonment -- in this case whether he really was falsely imprisoned, whether he had a reasonable means of escape (swimming), etc.
However with regard to contracts, the case deals with identifying the terms of the contract. Specifically, terms can be implied into a contract through previous dealings. If I recall correctly, because the man had used the ferry service many times before, he was taken to have been aware of the terms on the notice.