Poll Question 8 - Cerial Box (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter bradical
- Start date
I hate school
New Member
yeah i guess i put contract cos of my work on consumers, but i couldn't pick between the two so i just did eeny meeny miny moe.
stressed monkie
im a random
its contract my teacher said so lolz
um nah she explained that when the cereal was bought u were part of an informal contract e.g. oral contract because the ingredients on the cereal box say whats in the box and no were did it say metal pieces
um nah she explained that when the cereal was bought u were part of an informal contract e.g. oral contract because the ingredients on the cereal box say whats in the box and no were did it say metal pieces
The problem with that is that the question specifices that Chris is suing the manufacturer, and not the vendor/retailer (which is who the contract is with).
The arguments have been covered fairly extensively in other threads... without a decisive answer.
MiuMiu
Somethin' special....
Actually if you had done your study you would have.
The thing is we will never get a definite answer bout this till next year when the out the mc online!!
The thing is we will never get a definite answer bout this till next year when the out the mc online!!
Good point, u should answer this question in the context of law and society, cuz thats the section its in. i still think chris can take legal action against the manufacturer under both laws, however i think bos wanted us to answer tort, jst look at q.7 and you'll c why ....
El_chupah_nebre
New Member
Originally posted by Lazarus
The problem with that is that the question specifices that Chris is suing the manufacturer, and not the vendor/retailer (which is who the contract is with).
The arguments have been covered fairly extensively in other threads... without a decisive answer.
Dude, i swear you change your mind in every post!! A contract exists between the Consumer and Manufacturer!!! Therefor a contract, like you said in a previous post "you cant have negligence in the air." It was a breach of contract as the good weren't fit for the purpose. No Tort, sorry!
Originally posted by El_chupah_nebre
Originally posted by Lazarus
The problem with that is that the question specifices that Chris is suing the manufacturer, and not the vendor/retailer (which is who the contract is with).
The arguments have been covered fairly extensively in other threads... without a decisive answer.
Dude, i swear you change your mind in every post!! A contract exists between the Consumer and Manufacturer!!! Therefor a contract, like you said in a previous post "you cant have negligence in the air." It was a breach of contract as the good weren't fit for the purpose. No Tort, sorry!
Hey Ms "my unlce is last year was the head marker", what contract exists between the manufacturuer and consumer?
Karlee
Member
Exactly. You have to think of the question in the context of Law and Society, and in that case it's tort law.
And Ms 12, I'm sure all of us studied, but I think you'll find that it says nothing about a purchase being a contract in Law and Society.
And Ms 12, I'm sure all of us studied, but I think you'll find that it says nothing about a purchase being a contract in Law and Society.
MiuMiu
Somethin' special....
Don't attack me, I have said all along it was tort. But the syllabus specifies learning about contract law. Just because it doesn't say it in the excel book doesn't mean you don't have to know it.....
LaZy_KoReAn
DrunkenMC
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2003
- Messages
- 1,434
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2004
People People look at the results
And this will be the general answer for the whole Sydney state of legal Students
And EVEN if the answer is contact which i doubt, they will also accept tort because of the majority of people picking tort law
SO "GET OVER IT"
And this will be the general answer for the whole Sydney state of legal Students
And EVEN if the answer is contact which i doubt, they will also accept tort because of the majority of people picking tort law
SO "GET OVER IT"
Asquithian mate i hate to say that again (coz i might get jumped) but such a contract exists, even according to D v S and Carlic v Smokey, it's all there under in the Heineman text book..
Issue
"Could Donoghue sue the manufacturer when she was not in special relationship with the manufacturer?
That is, she was not in a contract with the manufacturer because she had not purchased the drink and she did not fall into a category that the law had traditionally recognised as worthy of protection".
NOW, before you jump and say SHE WASN'T IN A CONTRACT, read it again.
Now read this:
The paragraph clearly asserts that people who indeed purchase the product from a retailer (the bottle was baught from a restaraunt i.e. retailer, not manufacturer), are in fact, in direct relationship with the manufacturer. It's all there. The only reason of the dispute is because Don didn't buy the bottle, her friend did. Therefore her friend had a contract with the manufacturer, and it was undetermined in the beginning if it applies to everyone, not just the purchaser. Of course it was ruled that yes, everyone is covered.
In the HSC question Chris has ndeed purchased the cereal for himself. Therefore, a contract exists...
Issue
"Could Donoghue sue the manufacturer when she was not in special relationship with the manufacturer?
That is, she was not in a contract with the manufacturer because she had not purchased the drink and she did not fall into a category that the law had traditionally recognised as worthy of protection".
NOW, before you jump and say SHE WASN'T IN A CONTRACT, read it again.
Now read this:
The paragraph clearly asserts that people who indeed purchase the product from a retailer (the bottle was baught from a restaraunt i.e. retailer, not manufacturer), are in fact, in direct relationship with the manufacturer. It's all there. The only reason of the dispute is because Don didn't buy the bottle, her friend did. Therefore her friend had a contract with the manufacturer, and it was undetermined in the beginning if it applies to everyone, not just the purchaser. Of course it was ruled that yes, everyone is covered.
In the HSC question Chris has ndeed purchased the cereal for himself. Therefore, a contract exists...