Multiple Choice Q8 and Q9 (1 Viewer)

[Flick]

Lol, so that's why you join these discussions, making up for the time you didn't do L.S. in the HSC (v. wise decision BTW)

 

[sugamama]

I think the contract law one is right!! hopefully...


But Laz the collective right is self determination. If a referendum is held to make republic then AUstralian people can DETERMINE themselves? I dont know

I think its D because its legal and the courts DO adjudicate on Human Rights. I read somwhere stuff like Kirby and the Bangalore Principles where judges in common law DO take into account international law and stuff.

 

[Flick]

Self-determination is not the ONLY collective right.
There are others too, like the right to development and the right to a healthy environment, and so on....

 

[sugamama]

But self determination is THE ONLY collective right in the LEGAL STUDIES SYLLABUS

 

[Suney_J]

for q.8, u gotta know the definitions:
Contract law- governs the legal obligations and promises made by one individual to another.
Tort law- deals with civil wrongs, eg. defamation, negligence, nuisance, trespass.

the manufacturer was negligent, because of the pieces of metal found in the box, but the reason they were negligent was because they didn't fullfill their legal obligation, so tort law is correct, but contract law is more correct because it's more specific, and tort law can include contract law. i jst wish i put contract law DAMN!!!

 

[Lazarus]

A referendum by itself would allow the voting population to determine any necessary changes - we don't need to be a republic to do this. Can you give me the HSC definition of "self-determination"?

(Though I do agree with you now that the answer is D.)

 

[sugamama]

YAY GO LAZ
u are the bomb!!!!

hehe OK

now we just need to FINALISE this contract law/tort law

Laz is saying contract so far. I second that!

 

[Flick]

Oh is it? I wouldn't know, I'm pretty sure I didn't recieve a syllabus for legal....oh well

 

[Suney_J]

for 9 i put d, because a law reform commission can't actually resolve a dispute, they can only make recomendations to the government to make reforms. and changin' the constitution for australia to become a republic cant resolve the dispute and a peace march is outta the question!!
so i think its D

 

[El_chupah_nebre]

YES IT IS DEFINATELY CONTRACT LAW FOR QUESTION 8, IT HAS BEEN CONFIRMED!! ~ I JUST RANG MY UNCLE WHO IS A HSC HEAD MARKER FOR LEGAL STUDIES AND HE SAID WITHOUT A DOUBT CONTRACT LAW BECAUSE TORT LAW CAN ONLY BE APPLIED TO A THIRD PARTY AND CHRIS IS A DIRECT PARTY TO A CONTRACT. EAT SHIT ALL YOU ARROGANT TORT PEOPLE!! HEHEHE JK...

 

[Lazarus]

Your uncle would be breaching his own contract with the Board if he said that.

sugamama, the question you posted earlier - exact wording? There's no contract between consumer and manufacturer. I don't think I'm actually helping anyone here, so I'll move on...

 

[adamj]

Originally posted by Flick
Self-determination is not the ONLY collective right.
There are others too, like the right to development and the right to a healthy environment, and so on....

That is a differen ball game, that is individual.

 

[adamj]

Originally posted by Suney_J
for q.8, u gotta know the definitions:
Contract law- governs the legal obligations and promises made by one individual to another.
Tort law- deals with civil wrongs, eg. defamation, negligence, nuisance, trespass.

the manufacturer was negligent, because of the pieces of metal found in the box, but the reason they were negligent was because they didn't fullfill their legal obligation, so tort law is correct, but contract law is more correct because it's more specific, and tort law can include contract law. i jst wish i put contract law DAMN!!!

No Consumer law covers Contracts and Tort. The Board is taking it not from the perspective of the consumers section, but the Law and Society section which sees Torts and Contracts as seperate.

 

[El_chupah_nebre]

My uncle was a Head marker last year, cant mark this year so he can say what ever he wants.

 

[adamj]

In addition, the textbbok states nothing under Torts about injury, nor in contracts about manufacturers.

 

[adamj]

Originally posted by El_chupah_nebre
YES IT IS DEFINATELY CONTRACT LAW FOR QUESTION 8, IT HAS BEEN CONFIRMED!! ~ I JUST RANG MY UNCLE WHO IS A HSC HEAD MARKER FOR LEGAL STUDIES AND HE SAID WITHOUT A DOUBT CONTRACT LAW BECAUSE TORT LAW CAN ONLY BE APPLIED TO A THIRD PARTY AND CHRIS IS A DIRECT PARTY TO A CONTRACT. EAT SHIT ALL YOU ARROGANT TORT PEOPLE!! HEHEHE JK...

I still disagree, and I don't care if you uncle wrote the questions, the question is misleading and the Board should in their best interests award marks to both Tort and Contract.

 

[Lazarus]

Originally posted by adamj
In addition, the textbbok states nothing under Torts about injury, nor in contracts about manufacturers.

Hypothetical - let's say Chris is going to sue in tort law.

What would she be suing for?

(I agree that both answers should be accepted as correct.)

 

[adamj]

El chupah nebre, so can I and I say, Torts

 

[adamj]

Negligence, the textbook says nothing about injury, only an omission, there is a section that talks about preventing injury.

Hey thanks Laz, appreciate your time in this, it is great to know you can put your expertise to this feud.

Hey El chupah nebre, can you ask your uncle if they would accept two, in the midst of this inccorect wording?

 

[adamj]

I am very angry, they always do this, they ask the dumbest questions to stir the pot. They should ensure that their questions cover all technicalities that students would study, the duty of care issue was seen by almost half of legal studies students doing consumers, so many would know that it would be tort, others would see the merchantable quality and answer as Contract. The Law and Society issue does not mention a case this specific.