Tuesday, March 1, 2016

Q5


In order to make a claim for negligence it is necessary to establish:-

-          A duty of care is owed;

-          The duty was breached; and

-          The breach caused damage.

According to Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] a duty of care is owed to your neighbor and this is defined as persons who can reasonably foresee as likely to be affected by their conduct. In our case the caterers would owed me a duty of care as any act that would contaminate the food is likely to cause a consumer injury or damage as it is foreseeable that food will be consumed. As in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] where the manufacturers of a drink owed the ultimate consumer a duty of care.

 

The duty of care is breached when the Defendant’s conduct falls below the standard of the reasonable man. In deciding what is the standard of care, the courts will be invited to consider a variety of factors including the probability of harm (Bolton v Stone), the likely seriousness of hard (Paris v Stepney Borough Council) and the obviousness of the risk (Woods v Multi Sport Holdings) In our current case, it would be obvious that is there is a rat in the food, the caterers would not only fall short of the standard of care but it may well be a breach of safety standards that may well attract criminal prosecution.

 

Finally it is necessary to show that the breach of duty had resulted the damage. The commons test for causation is the “but for” test which states that but for the breach, would the damage have occurred. (Yates v Jones [1990]) or in a case of multi causes, would the breach have materially increased the risk of the damage (Cook v ACT Racing Club [2001]) In our current case, the rat in the food, which as stated above would have been the breach or the carelessness, was the cause of the food poisoning – unless of course we are able to show there were other causes which is unlikely – in which case it is necessary to show it had materially increased the risk of the food poisoning.

The next issue would the liability of the caterer for the broken arm. The rule is that even if the damage was caused using the but for test, the damage would not be attributable to the Defendant is it was not reasonably foreseeable consequence  or it was too remote – The Wagon Mound No.1 [1961] Whilst the hospitalization was a direct result the broken arm may not be a foreseeable consequence. It may be a new act that breaks the chain of causation or a novus actus interveniens.

 

In conclusion, the caterers would be liable to me for the food poisoning but perhaps not the broken arm as it may not be a consequence that is reasonably forseable.

Monday, February 2, 2015

Semester 1 (Commercial Law) & (Law of Investments)

Commercial Law

3rd FebIntroduction
10th FebTort
24th FebFormation
3rd MarchFormation/Vitiating Factors
10th MarchVitiating Factors
17th MarchTest/Terms
24th MarchTerms/Remedies
31st MarchConsumer Protection
7th AprilBusiness/Revision




Law of Investments


7th Feb Receivership &  Administration 
14th Feb Liquidation
28th Feb Managed Investment Schemes
7th March Debt
14th MarchEquities
21st  March Introduction to the investment and financial market 
28th March
Legal Framework of Investment
4th April Conduct & Disclosure
11th April Revision

























Sunday, February 16, 2014

Law of Investment Sem 1 2014

This is the schedule for Semester 1 2014 Law of Investment & Financial Markets


15th Feb Managed   Investment Scheme
22nd Feb Debts
1st Mar Equities
8th Mar Structures of Investments
15th Mar Companies
22nd Mar Directors Duties
29th Mar Receivership & Administration
5th Mar Liquidation
12th Mar Revision

Sem 1 2014 Commercial law

This is the schedule for Sem 1 2014 Commercial Law

10th Feb Introduction
24th Feb Formation
3rd Mar Vitiating factors
10th Mar Vitiating Factors
17th Mar Terms
24th Mar Remedies
31st Mar Tort
7th Apr Business / Revision

Thursday, July 18, 2013

Law of Investments

There are some changes to the course this term with the exclusion of some topics and inclusion of some new ones. Please use the previous blogs carefully as some of the topics such as death and relationship breakdowns have been excluded and also bankruptcy. The lecture outline for Semester 2 2013 will be as follows:-


Jul 19 (Fri)
12.00pm - 3.00pm
 
Managed Investment Schemes
 
Jul 26 (Fri)
12.00pm - 3.00pm
 
Debts
 
Aug 16(Fri)
8.30am - 11.30am
 
Equities
 
Aug 23(Fri)
8.30am - 11.30am
 
Structures of Investments
Aug 30(Fri)
8.30am - 11.30am
 
Companies
 
Sep 6(Fri)
8.30am - 11.30am
 
Directors Duties
 
Sep 20(Fri)
8.30am - 11.30am
 
Receivership & Administration
 
Oct 4(Fri)
8.30am - 11.30am
 
Liquidation
 
Oct 11(Fri)
8.30am - 11.30am
 
Revision
 




Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Law of Investment (2012 Semester 2)

Hi Everybody,

Assignment due date : 31st August 2012

This is the lesson plan:-

Thursday 26th July - Dispute Resolution

Friday 27th July - Managed Investment Scheme

Friday 17th August - Debts & Security

Thursday 23rd August - Investement in Property

Thursday 30th August - Investement in Equities

Friday 31st August - Death & Relationship Breakdown

Friday 14th Sept - Structures for Investments

Friday 21st Sept - Insolvency

Friday 28th Sept  - Revision

Saturday, April 7, 2012

Law of Investments

Law of Investments
The corresponding chapters in the textbook (Mc Laren,Naylor, Toohey) to the lectures are as follows:-

LECTURES 1 - Ch 1 & 2
LECTURES 2 - Ch 3
LECTURES 3 – Ch 4
LECTURES 4 – Ch 5
LECTURES 5 – Ch 6
LECTURES 6 – Ch 11
LECTURES 7 – Ch 7
LECTURES 8 - Ch 8, 9 , 12
LECTURES 9 – Ch 16
LECTURES 10 – Ch 22
LECTURES 11 – Ch 15 & Ch 14