• 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

Question 8 (1 Viewer)

adamj

Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2003
Messages
488
The scenario said Chris "disovered", how did she discover, did she look inside the cereal or did she discover it from an injury or from consuming the product?


Furthermore no contracts exist between consumer and manufacturer, and commonsense would also mean that the vendor would not be sued for selling something without the knowledge of metal peices.

It would be contract law, if perhaps Chris went to the vendor and asked for a refund and they refused, then it would be contract law becuase one side is not meeting its obligations, breaching a condition or product liability.

However in this case, she has not asked for a refund, she has gone straight to the manufacturer, it is more than likely a tort on the grounds of negligence, she may have been injured and that is how she discivered it.

If she did sue under contract law, what would she sue for?
 

Lazarus

Retired
Joined
Jul 6, 2002
Messages
5,965
Location
CBD
Gender
Male
HSC
2001
Originally posted by adamj
If she did sue under contract law, what would she sue for?
She would sue for breach of an implied term pertaining to the quality of the goods. The term has been breached (immediately entitling her to damages), whether the vendor is aware of it or not. The vendor could in turn take action against the manufacturer to recover those damages.

Donoghue v Stevenson would have been a simple contract case if Mrs Donoghue had been the one to purchase the drink.

If you assume Chris was injured in some way, the answer would have to be tort law.
 

Suney_J

Not a member
Joined
Oct 20, 2003
Messages
959
Location
Sydney
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2003
I think every 1 is makin this question more difficult than it really is. all the infromation bout contract law is true, and she can sue under contract law, however they dont teach u that stuff in law and society, so in the context of law and society i think the BOS wanted us to put tort. jst look at q.7, its a hint by the bos for q.8
 

mememe

Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2003
Messages
223
it doesnt say she was injured - a tort you have to be injured, dont you? And one of the biggest rules with legal is NEVER ASSUME. if it does not state she was injured, then she wasnt.

Besides, its only one mark. Now, unless you can prove that that one mark is the difference between you getting into the uni course you desperately need to do to follow your dream career, or failing, then forget about it. who cares!
 

sugamama

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

hehe its a dodgy Q

do like BOS people read this forum and see our opinions? :)
 

adamj

Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2003
Messages
488
Originally posted by mememe
it doesnt say she was injured - a tort you have to be injured, dont you? And one of the biggest rules with legal is NEVER ASSUME. if it does not state she was injured, then she wasnt.

Besides, its only one mark. Now, unless you can prove that that one mark is the difference between you getting into the uni course you desperately need to do to follow your dream career, or failing, then forget about it. who cares!
Becuase this is legal action, think like a Lawyer, I can't assume she saw it, I can only assume that she discovered, it whether by consumption or sight, in addition I don't have to assume there is a contract, becuase there isn't one between the manufacturer and consumer.
 

Golani

Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
232
Furthermore no contracts exist between consumer and manufacturer, and commonsense would also mean that the vendor would not be sued for selling something without the knowledge of metal peices.
Mate you dunno what the hell you're talking about....even if you end up being right it's not for the right reasons....

In Donoghue v Stevens there was a rulling that a contract exists regardless of who buys the bottler. Every single consumer transaction is a contract between the store, the consumer and the manufacturer. If the product is defected you can either go to the manufacturer or the seller, if the product injures you then you sue the manufacturer.

Laz i know what you're saying, that's exactly what i was thinking when i answered the question, i do consumers law and i know the whole Sale of Goods Act jargon off by heart 10 times over but this section under the syllabus is covered under tort law, so is dognue v stevens.
I'm afraid i might be wrong, but i'm not sure, could go either way...

Read my thread for a better idea of what is going on...
 

adamj

Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2003
Messages
488
Golani,

Don't tell me I don't know what I am talking about, Legal Studies is one my strong subjects, I have always had ambitions for law and have looked into them way before I started this course, I also come from a family with many people involved with the law.

The fact remains, you are being dismissive of the fact no obligations via a contract were established between Chris and the Manufacturuer, yet you continually address the issue of "Merhcantable quality", take the blinkers off and really get into analysing the possibilities.
 

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

Top