Question 8 was Tort law (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter bradical
- Start date
El_chupah_nebre
New Member
Contract law is the designed to govern the legal obligations between the parties of the contract. As Chris bought the cereal packet she is a party to the contract. Tort law can only be applied if she was a third party as the case of Donoghue V Stevenson. Im gonna put my money on contract law, plus couldn't Chris have made a claim of the goods "not being of merchantable quality" under contract law and not necessarily negligance??
The Trade Practices Act implies terms into all sales contracts for the goods to be of "merchantable quality" and to be "reasonably fit" for their intended purpose. These terms were breached.
As El_chupah_nebre said: The scenario can be distinguished from Donoghue v Stevenson because, in that case, Mrs Donoghue was not the purchaser of the product and so was not privy to the contract between retailer and consumer, thereby preventing her from suing in contract law.
It can't be tort law, as there was no personal harm - there's nothing to compensate.
jezzmo made a nice post in another thread pointing out that the question specifies that Chris wishes to sue the manufacturer (as opposed to the retailer). And you can only do that in tort law... as adamj said, there's no contract with the manufacturer. But there's still been no injury, so you can't sue in tort law either.
An odd question.
An odd question.
I will take that up with the Board if they penalise us for that one. I understand, the key in this question was Maufacturer, no contract is made between them. If it was between the vendor, it would be a different story.
However Lazarus, although I understand where you comming from, the law, what would the court hold the vendor up for, they did not manufacture the good.
However Lazarus, although I understand where you comming from, the law, what would the court hold the vendor up for, they did not manufacture the good.
The vendor sold a good that was not of "merchantable quality", nor was it "reasonably fit" for its intended purpose - breaching implied terms in the sales contract. The vendor would be able to sue the manufacturer for breaching the same terms (thus the consumer's damages are indirectly obtained from the manufacturer).
I haven't done property law... I'm guessing the action wouldn't be for something silly like damage to personal property (metal in cereal). Oh well.
I'll be interested in the actual answer, when it's released, heh.
El_chupah_nebre
New Member
Dude! I too do contract law and it worries me that you state contract law doesn't involve the consumer and manufacturer because it very much does! Parties to a contract are
1. The consumer
2. Supplier
3. Manufacturer
Its definately, without doubt, contact law, sorry adamj
1. The consumer
2. Supplier
3. Manufacturer
Its definately, without doubt, contact law, sorry adamj
MiuMiu
Somethin' special....
Where all you guys are going to go wrong is thinking too deeply. A tort in the syllabus is referred to as a civil wrong. The answer is tort.
MiuMiu
Somethin' special....
A civil wrong is an act or omission which harms an individual. In this case it was an omission (failure of quality control) that may have led to harm (I spose it could have been an act, they couldve been put in there deliberately). It was tort.
The reason all you people are saying contract is that you probably all do consumers in which you study the contract. If the answer was contract it would be disadvantaging those who don't do it, as it is only covered briefly in the law & society syllabus. The key word in the question was civil, indicating a civil wrong, which is the explanation of a tort in the syllabus.
The reason all you people are saying contract is that you probably all do consumers in which you study the contract. If the answer was contract it would be disadvantaging those who don't do it, as it is only covered briefly in the law & society syllabus. The key word in the question was civil, indicating a civil wrong, which is the explanation of a tort in the syllabus.
it is definitely tort.
You have to remember that question is meant to apply to everyone in the Legal Course, and only that area under the Law and Society section.
The people who answered contract law, I can see where you're coming from - that was my 'backup' answer - but on the 'balance of probabilites (omg that is so sad) it was tort law. Easy.
You have to remember that question is meant to apply to everyone in the Legal Course, and only that area under the Law and Society section.
The people who answered contract law, I can see where you're coming from - that was my 'backup' answer - but on the 'balance of probabilites (omg that is so sad) it was tort law. Easy.
MiuMiu
Somethin' special....
It doesn't matter if the harm actually occurs or not, the potential was there.
I know you think contract cos you're studying law, what Im saying is you have to look at the key terms of the question and relate it to the syllabus, which points undeniably to tort.
If it was contract they are disadvantaging the people who didn't do consumers.