Multiple Choice Q8 and Q9 (1 Viewer)

[sugamama]

I thought contract law but i'm gettin tort law vibes
And Q9 I thought it was D but I hear its B

So thoughts?
My reasoning for contract law is that by buying the cereal it created legal relationship/created a contract and then the dodgy metal meant it wasn't merchantable quality and thus contract law. I think tort is for civil wrongs IF there was no contract like if you walk on a footpath and fall over etc.

Ideas?

 

[sugamama]

ahh changing the constitution is kinda legal measure. And I think its the right one caus resolving a dispute about collective right ie self determination means that australia to become a republic ie to determine themselves. This can be done by referendum and changing the constitution. Well thats what I heard.

 

[LaZy_KoReAn]

Isn't it tort law?

 

[bipo]

i said it was tort law. cos tort law covers trespass, nuisance, defamation, and NEGLIGENCE and i am pretty sure that metal in cereal is negligence, but i was also thinking of putting contract so im not too sure

 

[LaZy_KoReAn]

No it can't be contract, just cause the consumer bought the product doesn't mean it is a contract, they did not sign anything, though it is a benefit to the consumer and the manufacturer, there wasn't any agreement

 

[sugamama]

I know people who answered contract and tort but my teacher said contract.

I guess I can see both sides of the story but I still kinda think its contract. If you BUY BUY BUY something, to me it means contract. And in that contract there are implied guarantees/waranties that protect the buyer from metal and crap ie. goods should be merchantable quality/fit for purpose and the cereal wasnt.

I thought tort law was for a civil wrong if THERE ISNT A contract like slipping over in the shopping centre which the manager is negligent for.

The key to me is the BUYING. If he didn't buy it it wouldnt by contract I think. I dunno if my reasoning is right.

 

[Tdiddiy]

I put contract law because the good wasn't of merchantable quality, but when you think about the picture, if some kid ate that metal and it cut his throat, you aren't going to go whinging about conrtacts, your gonna sue for lots of damages for negligence, therefore I put down the wrong answer, must have been tort. Wish I had thought of it then.

 

[Lazarus]

Q8 is contract law.

Chris has suffered no personal harm, so he or she can't sue in tort law - there's nothing to compensate. However, the manufacturer has breached an implied term present in all sales contracts (due to the Trade Practices Act) for the goods to be "reasonably fit" for their intended purpose.

Edit: Few other people replied first, so I'll stop here.

 

[sugamama]

Originally posted by LaZy_KoReAn
No it can't be contract, just cause the consumer bought the product doesn't mean it is a contract, they did not sign anything, though it is a benefit to the consumer and the manufacturer, there wasn't any agreement

By buying ANYTHING you create a contract and enter into it. Buying a bottle of coke is entering into a contract Lazy!

It doesnt SAY he cut his throat dude. It says Chris DISCOVERED pieces so she didnt eat it.

 

[sugamama]

Originally posted by Lazarus
Q8 is contract law.

Chris has suffered no personal harm, so he can't sue in tort law - there's nothing to compensate. However, the manufacturer has breached an implied term present in all sales contracts (due to the Trade Practices Act) for the goods to be "reasonably fit" for their intended purpose.

YEAH!!! GO LAZARUS!! hehee

he is God so he's always right! Go contract!

My teacher was saying how it was unfair for people who didn't learn about contracts! YAY!!!

 

[sugamama]

What about Q9 Laz?!?!

 

[LaZy_KoReAn]

Originally posted by sugamama
By buying ANYTHING you create a contract and enter into it. Buying a bottle of coke is entering into a contract Lazy!

It doesnt SAY he cut his throat dude. It says Chris DISCOVERED pieces so she didnt eat it.

AHHHHHHH

DON'T confuse me, ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh

im not visiting this section....... im panicking what else i got wrong

Maybe BoS will be kind enough to give a tick for tort law too ay ay ay?

 

[ImA_FaIrY_PrNCs]

i didnt do consumers but i got that right, it was common sense, unlike the rest of the paper haha

 

[sugamama]

hehe I can see how its confusing.

The rest of the paper did smell!

So Q9!!!!!

 

[sugamama]

uhhh EVERYONES knows buying something you enter into a contract!!!! It's common sense.

It's unfair that Q was targeted at consumer law kids who learnt it.

 

[sugamama]

true!

Fortunately our teacher chose Consumer/Family!

He's the BOMB!

Blame your teachers!!! j/k! It's only 1 mark

 

[Lazarus]

Originally posted by sugamama
What about Q9 Laz?!?!

I don't have a copy of the exam, heh... You'll have to type it out first.

Originally posted by gmraso
how the fk is buying a coke a contract(alright you expect it to be coke and not shit but thats not a contract) Alrighty if the god guy says its a contract is a contract(he does study law so i Reckon he would know what his going on about)

The elements required for a contract:

- an offer must be made (e.g. the customer takes the item to the cashier)
- the offer must be accepted (e.g. the cashier makes the sale)
- there must be consideration (i.e. both parties must gain something, e.g. the cashier receives money and the consumer receives the item)

That's enough to establish a prima facie contract...

 

[LaZy_KoReAn]

Originally posted by sugamama
uhhh EVERYONES knows buying something you enter into a contract!!!! It's common sense.

It's unfair that Q was targeted at consumer law kids who learnt it.

TRUE

 

[LaZy_KoReAn]

Originally posted by Lazarus
I don't have a copy of the exam, heh... You'll have to type it out first.

The elements required for a contract:

- an offer must be made (e.g. the customer takes the item to the cashier)
- the offer must be accepted (e.g. the cashier makes the sale)
- there must be consideration (i.e. both parties must gain something, e.g. the cashier receives money and the consumer receives the item)

That's enough to establish a prima facie contract...

But the cashier sold it, not the "manufacturer"

 

[sugamama]

Ok Q9 was

By what means does the Australian legal system attempt to resolve a dispute about collective human rights?

a. By lobby groups organising a peace march
b.By a referendum to change the Aus COnstitution so that Aus becomes a republic
c. By a law reform commission inviting public submissions on the dispute
d.By the courts applying domestic and international law