CLAW1001 Thread (1 Viewer)

[myg0t]

I don't know if i should mention about the 4 corners rule. The facts says "Pharmco received several orders for the vaccine and Ring-Ting arranged for Transmore to deliver the vaccine". It doesnt specifically say that Ring-Ting arranged to for Transmore to deliver the vaccine to Pharmco or to Pharmco's customers. If it was to Pharmco, then the 4 corners rule can be raised and exclusion clauses are non-effectual.

ideas?

The first paragraph says 'It was intended for supply by Pharmco to various customers. The vaccine was to be delivered to Pharmco by another company, Ring Ting PL'

The last paragraph says 'In March 2005, Pharmco recieved several orders for the vaccine and Ring-Ting arranged for Transmore to deliver the vaccine..'



- My assumption is that it was the responsibility of Ring Ting to deliver to goods from wherever they were being stored to wherever Pharmco is located. Therefore im assuming the accident occured during transportation from the warehouse to the company.

Hence, 4 corners rule is useless here.

You should focus on the aspect of reasonable notice being given to Ring Ting as to the exclusion clauses instead.

 

[ToO LaZy ^*]

i dont think reasonable/sufficient notice was needed as it was reduced to writing.

 

[kow_dude]

Thanks for that, Mygot.

 

[jpr333]

Nah i think it still does because all they signed was a cred aapplication form or whatever and they could argue they had no idea what they were signign had actual conditions about the agrement in general. Notice was given, it was still enforced but mention this id say.

About part a i would have thought model and miles were the conditions but i ended up just going with warranties to be on the safe side saying if the model was in fact really important (like vintage 1970 or something) it could be considered a condition.

 

[myg0t]

im referring to the fact that there were conditions overleaf.

was there sufficient notice for Ring Ting to be notified that there these excl. clauses overleaf?

 

[kow_dude]

There was a sign "Please read 'Conditions of Contract'(overleaf) prior to signing" above where Ring-Ting signed. Ring-Ting must have seen that, i would say there was sufficient notice.

 

[jpr333]

Since any signed document is considered contractual in nature, and since the notice was given right above the spot he signed I said yes.

 

[myg0t]

correct

but my point was to focus away from 4 corners, not try and proove me wrong

 

[jpr333]

Ok there's not enough to write about though, yes it applies, and yes it was within 4 corners, therefore it covers all damage? That it. Or are there some TPA/statutes i'm missing..

 

[kow_dude]

Today, i overheard a group of girls discussing "previous dealings" because of transportation of vaccine which occurred in Janurary 2005 and later in March 2005. Is this possible?.

 

[stazi]

is claw actually as interesting as it looks to an outsider?

 

[kow_dude]

is claw actually as interesting as it looks to an outsider?

I hate it now. I was gonna do CLAW B next semester but screw it. If i get better marks, then yea.... i'll do CLAW B. But at the moment, i'm ripping my hair out.

 

[jpr333]

Today, i overheard a group of girls discussing "previous dealings" because of transportation of vaccine which occurred in Janurary 2005 and later in March 2005. Is this possible?.

I couldn't determine this from the facts, but even if it does apply (maybe i should mention it or whatever they mark based on what you mention) it just reinforces the clause

 

[ToO LaZy ^*]

can someone point me in the direction to where i might find related TPA/SOGA/other statute that i can use for Part A




EDIT: oh..and is anyone writing the intros for each part..like just briefly outline the issues..?
i find myself out of 'words' already =(

 

[myg0t]

hmm lets see:

JPR333: "Ok there's not enough to write about though, yes it applies, and yes it was within 4 corners, therefore it covers all damage? That it. Or are there some TPA/statutes i'm missing.."

---->> Have a look at the additional notes from this section. I haven't yet got around to it (still working my way through Question A - had some troubles late last night with marketing), particularly in relation to Sale of Goods Act and (off the top of my head) "Goods must match the description for which they are to be sold".



Kow_Dude: "Today, i overheard a group of girls discussing "previous dealings" because of transportation of vaccine which occurred in Janurary 2005 and later in March 2005. Is this possible?."


---> This does not constitute previous dealings. You will note that the vaccine is only IMPORTED in 2005 - there is nothing mentioned about delivery of such. Therefore there is insufficient facts presented to incorporate previous dealings.

Too Lazy: "oh..and is anyone writing the intros for each part..like just briefly outline the issues..?"

---> Id paste what i've got, but I fear those plagaristic c*nts. You just need to state that there is what appears to be a contract formed, but this is pending terms of the contract. Then you just go through and outlien the facts..pretty straightforward.





Now maybe you guys can help me - What's the Luna Park case that Guiseppe reffered to regarding Cheif Justice JOdran?

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Now maybe you guys can help me - What's the Luna Park case that Guiseppe reffered to regarding Cheif Justice JOdran?

I think the case you're looking for is Tramways Advertising Pty Ltd v Luna Park (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 632

 

[kow_dude]

Tramways Advertising Pty Ltd v Luna park (NSW) Ltd, page 381

EDIT: Woops, Moonlightshadow posted just before me...

 

[myg0t]

Cheers guys.

PS - is innonimate terms relevant to part A? As in can you argue that these terms may or may not be serious?

I am inclined to think not so, whereby the condition is the year model of the car, and the tyres are a warranty.

Confirm/Deny?

 

[jpr333]

hmm lets see:

JPR333: "Ok there's not enough to write about though, yes it applies, and yes it was within 4 corners, therefore it covers all damage? That it. Or are there some TPA/statutes i'm missing.."

---->> Have a look at the additional notes from this section. I haven't yet got around to it (still working my way through Question A - had some troubles late last night with marketing), particularly in relation to Sale of Goods Act and (off the top of my head) "Goods must match the description for which they are to be sold".

Yep I found the statute it doesn't apply pm me if you want it.

 

[kow_dude]

Omg i urgently need ideas for Part B