• Want to help us with this year's BoS Trials?
    Let us know before 30 June. See this thread for details
  • Looking for HSC notes and resources?
    Check out our Notes & Resources page

Multiple Choice Q8 and Q9 (1 Viewer)

sugamama

Coldplay Fan
Joined
Jun 16, 2003
Messages
239
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

Coldplay Fan
Joined
Jun 16, 2003
Messages
239
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.
 

bipo

New Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2003
Messages
9
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

DrunkenMC
Joined
Jul 19, 2003
Messages
1,434
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
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

Coldplay Fan
Joined
Jun 16, 2003
Messages
239
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

New Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2003
Messages
8
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.
 
Last edited:

Lazarus

Retired
Joined
Jul 6, 2002
Messages
5,965
Location
CBD
Gender
Male
HSC
2001
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

Coldplay Fan
Joined
Jun 16, 2003
Messages
239
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

Coldplay Fan
Joined
Jun 16, 2003
Messages
239
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!!!
 

LaZy_KoReAn

DrunkenMC
Joined
Jul 19, 2003
Messages
1,434
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
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 :mad:

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

sugamama

Coldplay Fan
Joined
Jun 16, 2003
Messages
239
hehe I can see how its confusing.

The rest of the paper did smell!

So Q9!!!!!
 

sugamama

Coldplay Fan
Joined
Jun 16, 2003
Messages
239
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

Coldplay Fan
Joined
Jun 16, 2003
Messages
239
true!

Fortunately our teacher chose Consumer/Family!

He's the BOMB!

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

Lazarus

Retired
Joined
Jul 6, 2002
Messages
5,965
Location
CBD
Gender
Male
HSC
2001
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

DrunkenMC
Joined
Jul 19, 2003
Messages
1,434
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
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

DrunkenMC
Joined
Jul 19, 2003
Messages
1,434
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
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" :rolleyes:
 

sugamama

Coldplay Fan
Joined
Jun 16, 2003
Messages
239
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
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top