• 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
they accepted 2 one year

But adam,

Chris wasnt injured. He didnt eat the metal. ANd that doesnt matter anyway. Go team contract!
 

adamj

Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2003
Messages
488
yes but where was the contract. At least there was an element of negligence.

You must be a lefty.
 

sugamama

Coldplay Fan
Joined
Jun 16, 2003
Messages
239
OMG read ALL of this thread before u post

If you bloody buy something you're entering a CONTRACT

There are implied conditions in every contract that goods must be of merchantable quality and fit for purpose.
 

mememe

Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2003
Messages
223
I put down contract law (which im 100% sure is right) and i put down "by courts applying domestic and international law" which i think is right too. whats the point in arguing anyway, we'll see when the answers are published who is right.
 

dandaman

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2003
Messages
85
Location
Sydney
the logical answer is contract law.
besides who would want to use complex common law if youve got consumer statutes which state your rights clearly and precisely... It is a contract, the contract was breached, Chris would use statute consumer laws to gain a remedy most likely out of the courts neway. This shouldnt be in mulitple choice... theyll prob accept both
 

sugamama

Coldplay Fan
Joined
Jun 16, 2003
Messages
239
If you have EXCEL LEGAL STUDIES

turn to page 119

RIGHTS AGAINST MANUFACTURERS

product liability provisons in TPA means that consumers also have RIGHTS AGAINST MANUFACTURERS even though they HAVE NO CONTRACT WITH the manufacturer.

So Chris has rights against the manufacturer. GO TEAM CONTRACT
 

MiuMiu

Somethin' special....
Joined
Nov 7, 2002
Messages
4,329
Location
Back in the USSR
Gender
Female
HSC
2003
I put c for question 9 but teacher said it was d, cos they are addressing problems with a law not making a whole new one
 

krissy7685

Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2003
Messages
244
u learn about contracts in the law and society bit....
and tort...
haha u go sugamama.. and laz thanx darl.. the dux of our school put tort.. ahhahahh

go contract.. yay i got 1 so far... out of .. 100? :p

and its true.. everytime u buy something u go into a contract... if its faulty.. then its a different thing
 
Last edited:

adamj

Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2003
Messages
488
Originally posted by sugamama
If you have EXCEL LEGAL STUDIES

turn to page 119

RIGHTS AGAINST MANUFACTURERS

product liability provisons in TPA means that consumers also have RIGHTS AGAINST MANUFACTURERS even though they HAVE NO CONTRACT WITH the manufacturer.

So Chris has rights against the manufacturer. GO TEAM CONTRACT
Ok there are rights, if you did the preliminary course properly you would realise rights and duties are established in all areas of law. THERE IS NOT CONTRACT, so contract law would mean nothing, there is negligence. If it was the vendor going to court, I would have put contract.
 

sugamama

Coldplay Fan
Joined
Jun 16, 2003
Messages
239
AS if NO CONTRACT!!!
dude!!!!!

come on! common sense! everytime you make a purchase you enter into a LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT! You enter into them everyday and most people forget about such a simple thing!

I stick by krissy!!

GO TEAM CONTRACT!!! hehehe
 

adamj

Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2003
Messages
488
sugamama, I am begining to think you are like one of the pre-programmed androids I wrote about in Module A of my english essay (Blade Runner), repeating the same thing.

You enter into a contract with the Vendor not manufacturer.

Yeah stick together, the only way you can talk over me.
 

sugamama

Coldplay Fan
Joined
Jun 16, 2003
Messages
239
hehe maybe I AM!!!!!!

that was lame... :)

Ok..I know about the vendor thingey. But there are express rights against manufacturers and suppliers. It's under the Trade Prac Act and its in consumer law.

Even though the consumer doesnt enter into contract with manufacturer there are still implicit rights. And plus in this case Chris actually BOUGHT the cereal. So it differs with Donaghue in that Mrs Don didnt buy it so there was no contract in that case.
 

adamj

Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2003
Messages
488
Far out, you go over the same thing, RIGHTS ARE IN EVERY LAW, a contract don't only not set up rights. You know what i think, I think you know it was wrong, that your pro-consumer mindset was playing and that you though you would challenge those who didn't do consumers.

You say there was no contract in the case, actually there was, between the vendor and the manufacturuer, don't you read anything? Even if there wasn't as you imply, you are only proving my point even stronger, see no it is not about ensuring that it is contracts, it is about ensuring that it is not torts.
 

sugamama

Coldplay Fan
Joined
Jun 16, 2003
Messages
239
Originally posted by adamj
Far out, you go over the same thing, RIGHTS ARE IN EVERY LAW, a contract don't only not set up rights.
Huh?

Adam i am not as you say PRO consumer I'm only saying what I think. And i think that it has got to do with contract law SIMPLY because he bought it. I can see your point and I know contracts arent the only things that set up rights.

All I'm saying is he entered into contract yes/no?

And I think that's the difference. If he didn't enter a contract then of course it would be tort.

Contract wrong is under contract law

Tort wrong is any civil wrong BUT NOT dealing with contracts.

Isn't that right? I maybe wrong about that...
And I'm thinkin that that Q will get two answers maybe.
 

adamj

Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2003
Messages
488
Oh for goodness sake, you keep putting yourself into a tighter corner everytime you speak, you keep contradicting urself.

A tort is a civil wrong not dealing with contracts? Gee, I wander what a lawyer would say to that comment. So your defeintion of a tort is:

"Tort wrong is any civil wrong BUT NOT dealing with contracts."

So under your system of marking if asked this, you would need to mention to get your two marks:

That is a civil wrong (1 mark)

and to get the second, you need to mention that is not contract (another mark).

SO could I get two marks for saying that crime is not to do with contracts or property law.
 

sugamama

Coldplay Fan
Joined
Jun 16, 2003
Messages
239
Calm down Adam I'm only stabbin in the dark. You gotta chill bro!! It's only 1 mark!!!

Ok! Well my definition of tort law is right I think. I remember reading it somewhere. And I'm not talkin about system of markin etc I'm just sayin what I THINK (and I CAN BE WRONG!!!) is the defintion of tort law.

Caus tort and consumer law ARE seperate right?
 

Suney_J

Not a member
Joined
Oct 20, 2003
Messages
959
Location
Sydney
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2003
forget about that question, how about question 2 and question 10.
now they were really weird questions, when does the law promote human rights???
 

mememe

Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2003
Messages
223
Originally posted by Suney_J
forget about that question, how about question 2 and question 10.
now they were really weird questions, when does the law promote human rights???

For question 2 i got (A)
For question 10 i got (B)
 

sugamama

Coldplay Fan
Joined
Jun 16, 2003
Messages
239
For q2
its A when the HIgh court applies an intl treaty
q10 its B
dispute res.
 

Suney_J

Not a member
Joined
Oct 20, 2003
Messages
959
Location
Sydney
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2003
i got (a) for 2 as well. but for 10 i put c for some reason, cuz i wanted to finish that section quickly. but lookin back dispute resolution is the answer, DAYEM !!!!
 

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

Top