UQ Laws 1100 Exam Notes PDF

Preview

Summary

University of Queensland - LAWS1100 notes for final exam...

Description

LAWS1100 BUSINESS LAW FINAL EXAM NOTES

2 November 2019

Julia Bunz 45803293

JULIA BUNZ| LAWS1100 FINAL EXAM

Contents TORTS (NEGLIGENCE)............................................................................................................................4 Requirement 1: Duty of Care............................................................................................................4 Neighbour principle (Lord Atkin):..................................................................................................4 Established common law categories..............................................................................................4 Occupiers liability – Public Authorities..........................................................................................5 Hidden risk.....................................................................................................................................5 Duty of care – no established categories.......................................................................................5 Requirement 2: Breach of Duty........................................................................................................6 Statutory based.............................................................................................................................6 A reasonable person......................................................................................................................6 1.

The probability of harm.........................................................................................................6

2.

The likely seriousness of the harm.........................................................................................6

3.

The burden of taking precautions..........................................................................................6

4.

The social utility of the defendant’s activity...........................................................................7

Requirement 3: Causation................................................................................................................7 Two tests for causation:.................................................................................................................7 The material contribution test.......................................................................................................7 Statue: S11 CLA – Scope of liability (remoteness)..........................................................................8 Defences............................................................................................................................................8 1.

Voluntary assumption of risk.................................................................................................8

2.

Contributory negligence (S23) – often relevant....................................................................9

Remedies...........................................................................................................................................9 Consequences – injunctions and damages........................................................................................9 Injunction.......................................................................................................................................9 Damages........................................................................................................................................9 What is a contract................................................................................................................................10 CONTRACTS 1......................................................................................................................................10 Requirement 1 - Agreement............................................................................................................10 What is an offer?.............................................................................................................................10 What is Acceptance?.......................................................................................................................11 Requirement 2 – Intention...............................................................................................................11 Intention – Presumption 1...........................................................................................................11 Intention – Presumption 2...........................................................................................................12 Requirement 3 – Consideration.......................................................................................................12 Page 1 of 51

JULIA BUNZ| LAWS1100 FINAL EXAM CONTRACTS 2......................................................................................................................................13 1.

Implied terms, parole evidence rule and collateral contracts..................................................13 1.1

Implied Terms..................................................................................................................13

1.2

The Parole Evidence Rule.................................................................................................13

1.3

Collateral Contracts..........................................................................................................14

2.

Disclaimers/Exclusion Clauses.................................................................................................14 2.1

Term of the contract........................................................................................................14

Terms vs Representations................................................................................................................15 Express Terms (Condition or Warranty).......................................................................................16 Implied (also connected with ACL)...............................................................................................16 2.2

Applying to the breach in question..................................................................................17

2.3

Scope of the Disclaimer...................................................................................................18

CONTRACTS 3......................................................................................................................................18 1.

Vitiating Factors.......................................................................................................................18 1.1

2.

Misrepresentation............................................................................................................18

Remedies – rescission..............................................................................................................21

Damages, Equitable and Statutory remedies...................................................................................21 Discharge.........................................................................................................................................22 ACENCY................................................................................................................................................22 Implications.....................................................................................................................................22 Responsibilities................................................................................................................................23 Types of authority............................................................................................................................23 1.

Actual authority...................................................................................................................23

2.

Apparent authority..............................................................................................................24

Fiduciary Duties of an Agent............................................................................................................25 PARTNERSHIP...................................................................................................................................25 Requirements for a partnership...................................................................................................25 Authority of Partners...................................................................................................................26 Partners and Fiduciary Duties......................................................................................................27 COMPETITION LAW.............................................................................................................................28 Anti-competitive behaviour provisions............................................................................................28 Cartel Conduct.................................................................................................................................28 Price Fixing.......................................................................................................................................29 Misuse of Market Power..................................................................................................................29 Resale Price Maintenance................................................................................................................29 Primary Boycotts..............................................................................................................................30 Page 2 of 51

JULIA BUNZ| LAWS1100 FINAL EXAM Secondary Boycotts.........................................................................................................................30 Exclusive Dealing.............................................................................................................................30 Mergers and Acquisitions................................................................................................................30 Agreements that Lessen Competition..............................................................................................31 Interesting case law.........................................................................................................................31 Statutory implied terms...................................................................................................................31 Remedies.........................................................................................................................................31 Tort Law ILAC Example 1..............................................................................................................32 Tort Law ILAC Example 2..............................................................................................................35 Contract Law (1&2) ILAC Example 1.............................................................................................37 Contract Law (3) ILAC Example 1................................................................................................39 Consumer Law ILAC Example 1...................................................................................................42

Page 3 of 51

JULIA BUNZ| LAWS1100 FINAL EXAM

TORTS (NEGLIGENCE) A person commits the tort of negligence if they carelessly cause harm to another person. Don’t have to have intent. Three areas to consider in a negligence claim: 1. Law of negligence – 3 stages 2. Are there any defences? 3. What are the remedies? QLD – Civil Liability Act 2003 A person commits the tort of negligence if: 1. They (the defendant) owe the other person (the plaintiff) a duty of care 2. They breach their duty of care – the standard expected is that of a “reasonable” persons 3. The breach of duty causes the other person to suffer loss, damage or injury Requirement 1: Duty of Care - Is it a public authority? - Established Category or not establish category? - Negligent Misstatement? Has it been said? Neighbour principle (Lord Atkin): requires that you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Neighbours- persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonable to have them in contemplation 

Established by the Donoghue vs Stevenson case – Snail in the Bottle Case – 1932 o Contract between friend and the café o Duty of care to the consumer

Established common law categories (came from the Donoghue vs Stevenson case):    



Motorists to other road users Doctors to their patients Accountants to their clients Manufactures to their customers – a manufacturer owes a duty of care to people who use their goods or products eg. Customers o CASE: Donoghue vs Stevenson 1932 o Also ACL Occupiers to people on their premises – an occupier of a premises owes a duty of care to all persons entering the premises to ensure that the premises is safe. Something wrong with the premises. Occupiers are persons who have control and

Page 4 of 51

JULIA BUNZ| LAWS1100 FINAL EXAM



power over premises and who owe a duty of care to all entrants to ensure that premises is safe. o CASE: Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd vs Zalunza 1987 Employers to their employees

Occupiers liability – Public Authorities  Can include Government and Council bodies  Public Authorities can be “occupiers”  Questionable whether or not public authorities automatically owe a duty of care to people in areas under their control  Depends on a range of factors – hidden risks Hidden risk – is there a hidden risk that requires warning or prevention? Is the risk foreseeable or obvious to a reasonable person? 







CASE: Nagle vs Rottnest Island Authority 1993 o Submerged rocks at a designated swimming area with signs to “approve” swimming o Therefore, hidden risk and occupier owes a duty of care CASE: Swain vs Waverley 2005 o Submerged sandbar at a patrolled surf beach between the flags o Hidden risk – surfer dived into waves – duty of care to warn CASE: Romeo vs Conservation Commission 1998 o Unfenced public space on a cliff top o Obvious risk – don’t have to warn – therefore no duty of care CASE: Vairy vs Wyong Shire Council o Plaintiff dived into the sea from a natural rocky platform at a surfing beach o The beach was unpatrolled with no signs, all natural, no signs encouraging o At own risk – no duty of care

Duty of care – no established categories Two tests must be satisfied 1. Was it reasonably foreseeable that the defendants conduct could cause harm to someone? 2. Are the salient features of the case consistent with the existence of a duty of care?  Salient features include: o Relationship between parties o Control o Relative knowledge o Experience o Vulnerability and reliance o Personal responsibility – very strong argument, should know your own limits Belly dancer example Page 5 of 51

JULIA BUNZ| LAWS1100 FINAL EXAM

DUTY OF CARE – EXAM EDITION 1. Three stages to establish duty of care 2. Donoghue vs Stevenson case 3. Established category a. Identify category 4. Public authority or not a. Do the law for public authority 5. Law for not established categories Requirement 2: Breach of Duty Statutory based Just because a duty of care was owed doesn’t mean it was breached – it must be shown that the risk was foreseeable and significant and that the defendant failed to do what a reasonable person would have done or would not have done s9(1) The Civil Liability Act 2003 1. Was the risk foreseeable? – point of view of the defendant 2. Was the risk not insignificant? – point of view of the defendant 3. Would a reasonable person have taken precautions? A reasonable person: someone of normal intelligence, credited with such perception of the surrounding circumstances and such knowledge of other pertinent matters as the relevant person would normally possess. ALWAYS LIST ALL CASES FOR 4 STEPS S9(2) CLA In order to determine what a reasonable person would do, a number of factors are considered when decided what a normal person would/would not have done: 1. o o o

The probability of harm A low or high chance of harm occurring? The mathematical chance of causing harm? CASE: Bolton vs Stone 1951 o Cricket ball cleared the stadium and hit someone o Historically, what was the frequency of the ball clearing the ground and hitting someone? o Low probability of harm, high burden

2. The likely seriousness of the harm o Minor or serious? o CASE: Paris vs Stepney Borough Council 1951 o Worker was welding steel with only one eye o Worker refused to use a mask o Court found the seriousness was heightened cause he only had one eye 3. The burden of taking precautions o Time consuming or expensive? o CASE: Bolton vs Stone 1951 Page 6 of 51

JULIA BUNZ| LAWS1100 FINAL EXAM

o Costly to take precautions with a low probability of harm 4. The social utility of the defendant’s activity Very limited circumstances where this area is considered by the court. EXAM- social utility is not relevant, mention it in the law section and say it’s irrelevant in the application section o Is there a social utility? Is there a benefit to the public? o CASE: Watt vs Hertfordshire 1954 o Fireman called to an accident o Car was not available to secure equipment o Equipment was not secure o Fireman hurt by loose equipment Requirement 3: Causation Merely creating a risk of injury is not actionable   

Injury must have become actual Must flow from the breach Must not be remote

Did the breach of duty actually cause the injury? Two tests for causation: 1. Factual causation test: the breach of duty was a necessary condition of the occurrence of the harm (question of fact) 2. Scope of liability test: it is appropriate for the scope of liability to the defendant to extend to the harm so caused (question of law)  Medical costs, work related expenses Statue – S11 CLA – Factual causation Plaintiff must establish that the breach was a necessary condition of the occurrence of the harm  

The “But For” test – if not for the defendant’s carelessness would the plaintiff still have suffered If in the absence of the defendant’s carelessness, the plaintiff would not have suffered harm, then the harm was caused by the defendant’s carelessness

CASE: Yates vs Jones 1990 (factual causation) 



Yates was injured in a car accident caused by Jones. He was visited in the hospital by a friend who suggested heroin to ease the pain. Yates became addicted to heroin and sued Jones for the cost of the heroin addiction. But for Jones’ carelessness, would Yates have become addicted to heroin? Addiction not caused by the car accident, rather the actions of Yates’ friend.

The material contribution test If there are a number of causes of the harm, consider: Page 7 of 51

JULIA BUNZ| LAWS1100 FINAL EXAM

  

Occurs if the Defendant’s actions increase the risk of injury and the risk eventuates, whether or not other factors also contributed. It is not necessary for the Plaintiff to show that the Defendant’s carelessness was the sole cause of the harm. Sufficient to show that the carelessness was a contributing cause along with others.

CASE: Chappel vs Hart 1998 

McHugh J: “Before the Def will be held responsible for the Pl’s i...