Look At Q. 7 !!! (1 Viewer)

[Suney_J]

if u look at q.7, u can c the bos obviosly wanted us to put tort for q.8, cuz they wanted us to think bout the purpose of tort law; to remedy civil wrongs. however i think they stuffed that question, cuz it asked what type of law can she use, and she can use both laws to take legal action ..............

 

[loke1]

BOS is trying to test us, not trick us

 

[Suney_J]

Originally posted by loke1
BOS is trying to test us, not trick us

they are testing us, my point is i think q.7 is a hint for q.8

 

[MiuMiu]

well it could also be the other way around, they wanted you to have torts in your head and thus you would pick it for the next question. Who knows.

I put torts but I can see how both could be right.

 

[Golani]

i put contract and i can see how both could be right

lol

bad bad

 

[MiuMiu]

Yes, there are viable arguments for both....

 

[Josh17]

I put contracts and I can see how both could be right lol

 

[sugamama]

LOL

*scolds* Bad BOS!!! BADDD!!!

GO TEAM LEGAL!!!

 

[connie]

but no contract exists between the consumer and the manufacturer? i don't understand how it could be right, i think you would only get the mark if you put tort

 

[sara]

yeah i put tort....heres hoping im right!!

 

[LaZy_KoReAn]

get over it

 

[Ribbon]

Originally posted by connie
but no contract exists between the consumer and the manufacturer? i don't understand how it could be right, i think you would only get the mark if you put tort

This is all stuff from the consumers topic...
Privity of a contract means only the parties who made the contract are subject to its terms and conditions, BUT the laws of negligence (which apply here) operate independantly of privity, that is, people not involved in the contract whose negligence affect the contract can be sued under it. This means manufacturers can be made liable for harming the buyer of thier product, even if they were not involved in the contract of sale.

eg. Donoghue v Stevenson - a lady purchased a ginger beer in a brown bottle, halfway through drinking it she found a snail inside the bottle, and subsequently sued the manufacturer. The mabnufactere tried to argue they were not involved in the contract, but the court ruled against them and they had to pay damages.

This part of the consumers topic makes me think it was contract law... the Q is a bit unfair for those who didn't do consumers as an option though!

 

[connie]

but Donoghue v Stevenson was under tort law not contract law? and common law negligence doesn't have any thing to do with a contract?

 

[MaryJane]

i put tort but now, although i dont do consumers im thinking it is contract coz last yr they had a similar one with a girl called maria going to a concert but it being cancelled. she could remedy it via contract law although she never signed a contract...

but i think its pretty unfair on those who dont do consumers, but thats life i guess...

bloody legal studies!

 

[MiuMiu]

but that was because the people who she actually bought the ticket off were the ones who cancelled it. In this case, chris is not suing the vendor but the manufacturer.

 

[bboy_insane]

But in a concert you have a ticket and that ticket is the contract and you should get a refund or wahtever.

There is no contract in buying a product like cornflakes or whatever, it's a civil breach so i put tort law.

 

[MiuMiu]

Originally posted by bboy_insane

There is no contract in buying a product like cornflakes or whatever, it's a civil breach so i put tort law.

There is actually a contract with everything you purchase, but it is with the vendor, not the manufacturer.