Poll Question 8 - Cerial Box (1 Viewer)

[bradical]

Vote:- was the answer: Contract or Tort Law

 

[mememe]

LoL this is so silly. You can tell the type of argumentative debators this subject attracts! Ahhh this happened last year and the BOS had to put TWO correct answers, i can't believe they did it again.

PS - vote 1 CONTRACT LAW

 

[blazezs]

It has to be Contract Law

 

[adamj]

Look, I understand this, but you are confusing contract law in the area of consumers. Law and Society does not specify it the way you do and in addition the BOS syllabus would view it as Tort.

 

[I hate school]

yeah i guess i put contract cos of my work on consumers, but i couldn't pick between the two so i just did eeny meeny miny moe.

 

[stressed monkie]

its contract my teacher said so lolz
um nah she explained that when the cereal was bought u were part of an informal contract e.g. oral contract because the ingredients on the cereal box say whats in the box and no were did it say metal pieces

 

[Lazarus]

Originally posted by stressed monkie
she explained that when the cereal was bought u were part of an informal contract

The problem with that is that the question specifices that Chris is suing the manufacturer, and not the vendor/retailer (which is who the contract is with).

The arguments have been covered fairly extensively in other threads... without a decisive answer.

 

[mememe]

Originally posted by Lazarus
The problem with that is that the question specifices that Chris is suing the manufacturer, and not the vendor/retailer (which is who the contract is with).

Yeah but how are people who don't do consumer meant to know that? If that was the sole reason the answer wasn't contract law, it would be discriminatory because you don't learn that in law and society.

 

[MiuMiu]

Actually if you had done your study you would have.

The thing is we will never get a definite answer bout this till next year when the out the mc online!!

 

[loke1]

think about it this way..... take away all your knowledge of consumers if you did that as an option... the question is from law and society... at this stage there was nothing learnt about privity to a contract and all that shit

 

[Suney_J]

Originally posted by loke1
think about it this way..... take away all your knowledge of consumers if you did that as an option... the question is from law and society... at this stage there was nothing learnt about privity to a contract and all that shit

Good point, u should answer this question in the context of law and society, cuz thats the section its in. i still think chris can take legal action against the manufacturer under both laws, however i think bos wanted us to answer tort, jst look at q.7 and you'll c why ....

 

[El_chupah_nebre]

Originally posted by Lazarus
The problem with that is that the question specifices that Chris is suing the manufacturer, and not the vendor/retailer (which is who the contract is with).

The arguments have been covered fairly extensively in other threads... without a decisive answer. [/QUOTE

Dude, i swear you change your mind in every post!! A contract exists between the Consumer and Manufacturer!!! Therefor a contract, like you said in a previous post "you cant have negligence in the air." It was a breach of contract as the good weren't fit for the purpose. No Tort, sorry!

 

[sugamama]

Yeah but I thought that was trying to throw me off putting TORT.

hehe

Damn!

 

[adamj]

Originally posted by El_chupah_nebre

Originally posted by Lazarus
The problem with that is that the question specifices that Chris is suing the manufacturer, and not the vendor/retailer (which is who the contract is with).

The arguments have been covered fairly extensively in other threads... without a decisive answer. [/QUOTE

Dude, i swear you change your mind in every post!! A contract exists between the Consumer and Manufacturer!!! Therefor a contract, like you said in a previous post "you cant have negligence in the air." It was a breach of contract as the good weren't fit for the purpose. No Tort, sorry!

Hey Ms "my unlce is last year was the head marker", what contract exists between the manufacturuer and consumer?

 

[mememe]

Originally posted by adamj
Hey Ms "my unlce is last year was the head marker", what contract exists between the manufacturuer and consumer?

How are people who dont do consumer meant to know a contract doesnt exist between the manufacturer and the consumer??? If THATS why your answer is tort, then the question is bais against people who dont study the consumer option.

 

[Karlee]

Exactly. You have to think of the question in the context of Law and Society, and in that case it's tort law.
And Ms 12, I'm sure all of us studied, but I think you'll find that it says nothing about a purchase being a contract in Law and Society.

 

[Lazarus]

Originally posted by El_chupah_nebre
Dude, i swear you change your mind in every post!! A contract exists between the Consumer and Manufacturer!!!

I never said a contract exists between consumer and manufacturer...

 

[MiuMiu]

Originally posted by Karlee

And Ms 12, I'm sure all of us studied, but I think you'll find that it says nothing about a purchase being a contract in Law and Society.

Don't attack me, I have said all along it was tort. But the syllabus specifies learning about contract law. Just because it doesn't say it in the excel book doesn't mean you don't have to know it.....

 

[LaZy_KoReAn]

People People look at the results

And this will be the general answer for the whole Sydney state of legal Students

And EVEN if the answer is contact which i doubt, they will also accept tort because of the majority of people picking tort law

SO "GET OVER IT"

 

[Golani]

Asquithian mate i hate to say that again (coz i might get jumped) but such a contract exists, even according to D v S and Carlic v Smokey, it's all there under in the Heineman text book..

Issue
"Could Donoghue sue the manufacturer when she was not in special relationship with the manufacturer?
That is, she was not in a contract with the manufacturer because she had not purchased the drink and she did not fall into a category that the law had traditionally recognised as worthy of protection".

NOW, before you jump and say SHE WASN'T IN A CONTRACT, read it again.

Now read this:
The paragraph clearly asserts that people who indeed purchase the product from a retailer (the bottle was baught from a restaraunt i.e. retailer, not manufacturer), are in fact, in direct relationship with the manufacturer. It's all there. The only reason of the dispute is because Don didn't buy the bottle, her friend did. Therefore her friend had a contract with the manufacturer, and it was undetermined in the beginning if it applies to everyone, not just the purchaser. Of course it was ruled that yes, everyone is covered.
In the HSC question Chris has ndeed purchased the cereal for himself. Therefore, a contract exists...