So, it's all up and fantastic. Anyone taken a look? Any thoughts?
Question 1:
Didn't really pay much attention in property, so some rereading is in store. Question 5 might be a nice opportunity to get extra marks by looking up the TPA (and referencing correctly..
)
Question 2:
"Depends on how large an issue is involved... if it's only small, best to go to the tribunals... even better to avoid that, if possible, but not always. Bad publicity will follow a court case, too, so it might be better to just pay out the plaintiff... Court cases are fine when it's a big ($-wise) or serious (ie death of employee) issue."
63 Words... missed anything?
Question 3:
"...it is in the Eastern suburbs and he has heard that the people there have lots of money to spend." Sounds like Trish Blazey, doesn't it?
We're talking of economic loss. Again, more reading is in store, but I don't think he's got many options... they'll make us prove our knowledge by going through that step by step. Stepping outside BUSL250 for a second and looking at it as if it's reality, NOTHING would happen, becuase people are allowed to open businesses as they see fit. That's competition. So, unless there was a clause saying that the ex-business-owners won't open another business blah blah blah, they're fully entitled to.
John v. Accountant.
Clue: "As a result of the reports, John decides", indicating reliance on the statements... and I'm assuming that when you ask for a report fom an accountant like this they know you'll rely on it...
I don't think the accountant
should be sued, becuase he's offering an objective report of the CURRENT POSITION, he's not a fortune teller... Whether it was foreseeable that the ex-business owners would open another business or not is a bit odd, too... if you were running a profitable business, and sold it, would you open another one? Depends on your reasons for selling (which we're not told)...
Opinions? Thoughts?
Edit: Vicarious liability might be worthwhile at least mentioning, too, considering it would be thought out... Mr Bing Lee wouldn't be directly liable, it would be Quick Figures, so that's important to stress...
..assuming my knowledge of Vic. Liability is right!