El_chupah_nebre
New Member
Sugamama, dont go to the dark side!! May the force be with you~
-
Finished your HSC? Check out our University Discussion, Non-School forums or help out next year's HSC students! -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
To Settle Q8 Once And For All!! (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter FLR-IT
- Start date
El_chupah_nebre
New Member
The people that maintain the answer is Tort Law please understand the following.
- Do not compare the case to the Donoghue V stevenson Case with this scenario because it provides no relevance whatsoever! Chris cannot claim negligence under tort law for the following reason:-
1. There was no harm caused thus negligance is irrelevant.
What is more specific to the question is Contract law as the TPA states a consumer can claim redress under the fact that "goods must be of merchanable quality" in which box of cereal wasn't.
I can really see both arguments but the Contract law is more specific to the question....
I swear to god the person who wrote this multiple choice question was inspired by the simpsons episode in which Bart Simpson opens a packet of "CrustyO's" to the horror of swallowing a razor that was in the cereal. hmmm... interesting!!
- Do not compare the case to the Donoghue V stevenson Case with this scenario because it provides no relevance whatsoever! Chris cannot claim negligence under tort law for the following reason:-
1. There was no harm caused thus negligance is irrelevant.
What is more specific to the question is Contract law as the TPA states a consumer can claim redress under the fact that "goods must be of merchanable quality" in which box of cereal wasn't.
I can really see both arguments but the Contract law is more specific to the question....
I swear to god the person who wrote this multiple choice question was inspired by the simpsons episode in which Bart Simpson opens a packet of "CrustyO's" to the horror of swallowing a razor that was in the cereal. hmmm... interesting!!
J-J
New Member
Yeah, I don't know about what the answer is for sure and reading all this is just making me get more nervous about something that I don't have to anymore. Can somebody guarentee a correct answer? No. So when does the BOS release their results.. cause now I'm stinging for the solutions haha ... For the record I chose torts; and I didn't do consumers.
shazabdazla
Member
i agree with adam j....
i have not studied consumer law as an elective and thus would not have been able to dicriminate between cases to come to such a conclusion on contract law....
the multiple choice is done by all students and is based on law and society...
therefore to propose a question which requires knowledge of consumer law (an elective) to come to an appropriate and correct solution would be injust.
in eXel law and society it states:
"Torts: A tort is a wrongful act committed by somebody against someone else. Such acts include ... NEGLIGENCE ...eg. case of D v S"
and,
" Contract law: ...deals with agreements between people...buying and selling a house...doing something for someone for a sum of money"
- which seems to hint a formal agreement such as buying house or performing...
also:
under consumer law:
the buyer of the cereal (assumed) would have bought the cereal from the retailer, not the manufacturer, thus no legal contract existed, similarly to D v S...
any points missed and what do you think??
i have not studied consumer law as an elective and thus would not have been able to dicriminate between cases to come to such a conclusion on contract law....
the multiple choice is done by all students and is based on law and society...
therefore to propose a question which requires knowledge of consumer law (an elective) to come to an appropriate and correct solution would be injust.
in eXel law and society it states:
"Torts: A tort is a wrongful act committed by somebody against someone else. Such acts include ... NEGLIGENCE ...eg. case of D v S"
and,
" Contract law: ...deals with agreements between people...buying and selling a house...doing something for someone for a sum of money"
- which seems to hint a formal agreement such as buying house or performing...
also:
under consumer law:
the buyer of the cereal (assumed) would have bought the cereal from the retailer, not the manufacturer, thus no legal contract existed, similarly to D v S...
any points missed and what do you think??
