society changing Uni students (1 Viewer)

[William_Lawry]

Morning richie, morning all..

how are all the young uni students here, who are trying to change the world...

id just like to say, back in the 60s i tried, but soo gave up hope, cause i realised nothing could be done, just letting you now, that you should save your breath...

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Morning richie, morning all..

how are all the young uni students here, who are trying to change the world...

id just like to say, back in the 60s i tried, but soo gave up hope, cause i realised nothing could be done, just letting you now, that you should save your breath...

My aim in life is to get rid of Mason's "far-fetched and fanciful" definition of reasonable foreseeability at the breach stage

it's bogus, completely bogus

 

[neo o]

My aim in life is to get rid of Mason's "far-fetched and fanciful" definition of reasonable foreseeability at the breach stage

it's bogus, completely bogus

Since the legislation in NSW also requires a risk to be 'not insignificant', doesn't the 'far fetched and fanciful' test carry less import anyway?

 

[Jonathan A]

My aim in life is to get rid of Mason's "far-fetched and fanciful" definition of reasonable foreseeability at the breach stage

it's bogus, completely bogus

Well seeing as the gist of negligence is damage, what society is more concerned with is the damage recovered which the legislation has covered. I have to say nothing is wrong with Mason's definition, it just requires further construing.

 

[Jonathan A]

Since the legislation in NSW also requires a risk to be 'not insignificant', doesn't the 'far fetched and fanciful' test carry less import anyway?

I agree. You could also argue there are other considerations in common law which are mirrored in the CLA, e.g. Practicability, Utility and the like.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Since the legislation in NSW also requires a risk to be 'not insignificant', doesn't the 'far fetched and fanciful' test carry less import anyway?

It's still a requirement

I have to say nothing is wrong with Mason's definition, it just requires further construing.

My problem is with the word "far-fetched." There is something wrong with his definition, in that he partly contradicts himself. When we refer to reasonable foreseeability, Mason says, we are not refering to probabilty. Yet he defines reasonable foreseeability as not "far-fetched and fanciful". Have you ever bothered to ask yourself what far-fetched really means?

far-fetched
adj.
Not readily believable because of improbable elements therein: a far-fetched analogy; a far-fetched excuse.

Seeing as interpretation of the law has much to do with clarity, as a matter of language I must object to this kind of vagueness, for if left unchecked I think that the personal discretion of the judge presents an unnecessary arbitrariness.

 

[HeCtic]

Morning richie, morning all..

how are all the young uni students here, who are trying to change the world...

id just like to say, back in the 60s i tried, but soo gave up hope, cause i realised nothing could be done, just letting you now, that you should save your breath...

How's the pidgeon farm going Bill?