CLAW1001 Thread (1 Viewer)

[jpr333]

Part B seems too straight forward the exclausion clause looks like it's gonna hold right? unless you can argue the language doesn't stop liability against the individual company or they weren't in operation of the 4 corners of the contract... right right?>?

 

[myg0t]

If the seller intentionally changed the odometer and took advantage of the buyer's misunderstanding, then it might be an unilateral mistake. But i dont think 'mistake' is in the 'terms of contract' which is the main focus.

its not proven he changed the odometer. therefore we are looking at a negligent mistatement.

 

[ToO LaZy ^*]

there were never any statements made by Red regarding the odometer, therefore negligent mistatement does not apply

 

[myg0t]

there were never any statements made by Red regarding the odometer, therefore negligent mistatement does not apply

Can i have a slice of humble pie?

But then doesnt that imply that he has changed it?

 

[ToO LaZy ^*]

don't assume anything. always base your argument on the FACTS.

...or so i was told by my tutor

 

[kow_dude]

Yea, we don't know whether or not the seller changed it. It could've been the manufacturer or anybody. Does the incorrect odometer raise any issues??

 

[jpr333]

I argued if it turned out he did know about it or did infact tamper with it beeing an expert and all it could be considered breach of warranty

 

[myg0t]

2lazy is right, must base it on facts.


Does anyone here have Laura for a tutor?

 

[kow_dude]

I haven't argued anything about the odometer ... and i dont think it's a warranty.

By the way... what does "duco" mean ???!!!

 

[myg0t]

By the way... what does "duco" mean ???!!!

its the paint on the car..

 

[kow_dude]

its the paint on the car..

LOL... okokok... it wasn't in the dictionary !

 

[kow_dude]

they weren't in operation of the 4 corners of the contract... right right?>?

I don't know if i should mention about the 4 corners rule. The facts says "Pharmco received several orders for the vaccine and Ring-Ting arranged for Transmore to deliver the vaccine". It doesnt specifically say that Ring-Ting arranged to for Transmore to deliver the vaccine to Pharmco or to Pharmco's customers. If it was to Pharmco, then the 4 corners rule can be raised and exclusion clauses are non-effectual.

ideas?

 

[myg0t]

I don't know if i should mention about the 4 corners rule. The facts says "Pharmco received several orders for the vaccine and Ring-Ting arranged for Transmore to deliver the vaccine". It doesnt specifically say that Ring-Ting arranged to for Transmore to deliver the vaccine to Pharmco or to Pharmco's customers. If it was to Pharmco, then the 4 corners rule can be raised and exclusion clauses are non-effectual.

ideas?

I havent started on B yet, but based on what you said i think your missing the boat son.

Give me a good 10-15 and ill let u know

 

[kow_dude]

wel yer i'm really frustrated, i didnt pass the first assignment.

 

[myg0t]

Just quickly, in relation to Part A - the fact he signed indicates he intended to be bound regardless if he read it.

Does this mean Red is not liable to anything and the K is still enforced. Or do we refer to terms implied by statute law, namely the Sale of Goods Act and the Trade PRactices Act where he may be liable?

 

[myg0t]

wel yer i'm really frustrated, i didnt pass the first assignment.

are you intl student?

 

[sarevok]

"Does this mean Red is not liable to anything and the K is still enforced."

What do you mean? He signed the K, but Red still breached the terms of the K. There was no exclusion clause in the K to limit Red's liability.

 

[kow_dude]

No, i'm local. I made the UAI for commerce.

 

[ToO LaZy ^*]

fark...how the hell do i fit this assignment under the word limit.
my part is 750+ and i hvnt written the intro, nor have i talked about TPA,SOGA. (do i need to?..)

btw..what did everyone say about the model and new tyres?
misrep/mere misrep/conditn/warrranty?>..
this is all so so confusing :S

 

[myg0t]

fark...how the hell do i fit this assignment under the word limit.
my part is 750+ and i hvnt written the intro, nor have i talked about TPA,SOGA. (do i need to?..)

btw..what did everyone say about the model and new tyres?
misrep/mere misrep/conditn/warrranty?>..
this is all so so confusing :S

The reference of the model and tyres is a condition.

Brown would not have entered into the contract if Red didn't say this, an act of negligent mistatement. Using the paragraph from cheif justice Jordan re: luna park case.