Multiple Choice Q8 and Q9 (1 Viewer)

[sugamama]

The manufacturer still has liability LAzy

 

[sugamama]

Ahh I see it now
Yeah its CONTRACT LAW
manufacturer has duty of care hehe
I think...

 

[LaZy_KoReAn]

Originally posted by sugamama
The manufacturer still has liability LAzy

<< "sarcasm"

 

[Flick]

Originally posted by 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

My bet's on C....

Then again I could be wrong......

 

[LaZy_KoReAn]

Thats what i said too...

waiting for someone to deny it is c gawd

 

[Flick]

Originally posted by gmraso
i bet c as well but i think i lost again(bastard)

Well at least you wouldn't be alone.....2 of us will go down in flames with you

 

[sugamama]

how is it C?
justify
its totally WTF?!

Laz I need clarification on the tort/contract

The full Q is

Chris bought a packet of cereal from a corner shop. SHe opened it and discovered pieces of metal with the cereal. Chris wishes to take legal actuon against the manufacturer of the cereal. What type of law...

 

[LaZy_KoReAn]

Originally posted by sugamama
how is it C?
justify
its totally WTF?!

What did you pick?

C sounded most accurate

 

[sugamama]

D
caus its a real LEGAL measure
C is totally dodgy
like how is that gonna resolve the dispute?

 

[dandaman]

a) is compeltely wrong
b) wont change it because thats not under the constitution
c) asking for public submissions on the dispute wont solve it in relation to the 'legal system'... its just an exercise of free speech
d) similar thing to Mabo i think so yes it is D

 

[dandaman]

sorry with (b) i meant to say that becoming a republic wont really matter

(d) is definately right

 

[Flick]

I think C b'coz when ever there is a controversial law, it is up to the Law Reform Commission to review the law (and if it's about H.R. it involves everyone), and the law reform commission base their decisions about a good law on whether society feels justice is served.......maybe?

 

[sugamama]

Yeah but asif the ALRC will ask the public to make submissions...they research using diff methods. And it doesnt resolve dispute they only RECOMMEND changes to LAWWWWWWWWWW!!!!

 

[LaZy_KoReAn]

GOOD for you sugamama... you got them both right pfft, happy now

MEH, im just happy is OVER OVER OVER

 

[Flick]

Originally posted by sugamama
Yeah but asif the ALRC will ask the public to make submissions...they research using diff methods.

Why not? They take surveys don't they? Same kinda thing I reckon....

And it doesnt resolve dispute they only RECOMMEND changes to LAWWWWWWWWWW!!!!

Yup, but if the law sucked and ppl were unhappy with it, the gov't would wanna know what to do to make it better right? No point in applying a law that's causing contention, because you don't normally have ppl disputing over a law that hasn't already been applied, I mean, how would ppl no about it to dispute about it otherwise?

I think I'm either beginning to make sense or just confusing myself more.....

 

[sugamama]

Hmmm... I dunno

We'll have to wait for Laz to answer it. I already Pm'd him...

 

[Flick]

Yup, 'tis a good idea .

While we're waiting tho, what did you guys think of questions 11 & 14?

 

[Lazarus]

Originally posted by LaZy_KoReAn
But the cashier sold it, not the "manufacturer"

Originally posted by sugamama
Laz I need clarification on the tort/contract

The full Q is

Chris bought a packet of cereal from a corner shop. SHe opened it and discovered pieces of metal with the cereal. Chris wishes to take legal actuon against the manufacturer of the cereal. What type of law...

The cashier breached the contract with the consumer, entitling the consumer to damages, and the manufacturer breached the contract with the cashier, entitling the cashier to damages. Ultimately, the consumer is compensated from the manufacturer's pocket, but it doesn't happen directly.

It can be distinguished from Donoghue v Stevenson because, in that case, Mrs Donoghue was not the purchaser of the product and so was not privy to the contract between retailer and consumer, thereby preventing her from suing in contract law.

Originally posted by 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

I originally thought C, but I now think D.

a) Clearly incorrect.
b) Whilst amending the Constitution might have been correct, I don't think becoming a republic has anything to do with it.
c) Inviting public submissions seems to be a nice way to "resolve a dispute" on human rights. But I don't think it's actually part of the legal system - more of an adjunct to it.
d) There are a number of cases which support this approach (e.g. Mabo, Tampa).

 

[LaZy_KoReAn]

your RIGHT laz, but i dont agree with contract law still

 

[Lazarus]

What aspect of it do you disagree with? Explain. I could be wrong; I never did legal studies heh. Perhaps I'm being too pedantic.