Week 10 Louth v Diprose - Law random PDF

Preview

Summary

Law random ...

Description

Week 9 Summary Doctrine of Unconscionability 4 cases: Clarke v Malvis CBA v Amadio (elderly, unclear of their sons affairs) Bloomy v Ryan Louth v Diprose (emotional relationship between man and woman, man offers to buy woman house) There needs to be a special disability evident to the other party such that it was unfair prima facie to proceed. If said is present, the onus shifts onto the party free from the special disability. Week 10 Selection of facts and interpretation; Majority Judgment Describes Louth as: calculating whore (dangerous, undeserving and calculating) Diprose as: emotionally dependant, romantic fool (so infatuated he didn’t know what he was doing) *The Maj J draws on dominant discourses and re-perpetuate them to paint Diprose as the weaker, more vulnerable character and Louth as the powerful and dangerous manipulator Minority Judgment Describes Louth as: ‘damsel in distress’ Diprose as: educated, consenting, generous, kind gentlemen (knows what he is doing) Tran Script Describes Louth as: victim Diprose as: predator, dangerous, manipulator, wealthy, stalker Mary Louth is on single mother benefits – archetypal assumptions which may have been drawn from ‘single mum’ (negative assumptions – ‘they are the sort of people that would use a man for his money’ i.e. manipulate men for financial support) - Her intentions were constantly in question (was leaving her bills lying around intentionally for Diprose to stumble across and pay for or is it an act of genuine lack of organization)

King brought to bear, in interpreting the facts and evidence of this case, his life experiences  shows the complications and nuances of this case. Nonetheless, we have to accept and respect how King interpreted the facts. Diprose meant to give L the house, it was a gift, it was never meant to be reimbursed Tran Scripts (transcript of the evidence) He was at an emotional disadvantage but an economic advantage Emotional dependency of Diprose – disability - He was deeply in love with this woman, it is believed that she falsely fabricated that ideal to receive lavish gifts - He is so infatuated with Louth that he lost his mind - Yes, it was evident to Louth (evil seductress / manipulative) according to the majority judgment, thus making it prima facie unfair to proceed - This case demonstrates the nuances of legal system - Diprose is a solicitor (interesting interpretations by King and the High Court of his position) - Diprose lied about the re-transfer 6 times under oath - They think that Louth was an unreliable and calculating witness - Louth’s brother-in-law was decided as the most reliable witness - There is a distinct stronger party through depiction of the transcript; Diprose (his economic substantiality which was abused to be financially manipulative – the selection of facts on his income were quite interesting and the selection of facts about his feelings for her were very oversexualized (his 91 poems) - Louth was threatening that she was going to take her own life (it is later revealed that she was a victim of rape and a character of extreme vulnerability rather than intentional and calculated manipulation) - At one stage she admitted to feeling threatened by the consequences if she didn’t accept the house because Diprose was so persistent - This case attracted significant criticism (criticized for clouded judgment) - King said the poems were “tender, passionate often sentimental on the theme of unrequited love” – harmless adjectives which paint him as a romantic rather than an obsessive (read from Tooey’s judgment) - Contrastingly, Tran describes this ‘poetry’ as sexual harassment (re-defining their impact within this case) - The quarrel (minor disagreement) between Louth and Diprose (when Diprose went as lived with Louth) - Diprose told Louth he wanted the house transferred into his name, she refused and he left. Her evidence was that he verbally abused her and his evidence was that he said “let’s not argue about this, let’s be friends”. (Contrast) - Marriage proposal and how did the majority use it – as more evidence to emphasize his degree of infatuation (his proposal was that they would live together as man and wife and she would sleep with him in return to receive lavish gifts i.e. not your typical, romantic proposal)

-

Despite his possession of excessive and lavish assets, depicting an undeniable wealth, they tried persistently to paint him as a ‘poor individual’ - In the majority judgment, who is Louth (according to Tran S); VICTIM and Dirpose = PREDATOR (manipulator, wealthy, dangerous, STALKER)

Selection of facts to build evidence / transcript - marriage, equality, quarrel, economic status...