Section 1 - Law & Society (1 Viewer)

[ajdlinux]

from hreoc's website: "We help resolve complaints about human rights violation & various discrimination laws through a conciliation..." but in terms of enforceability the local court would be better if it had the jurisdiction to cover discrimination, as conciliation doesn't get you anywhere

It might be HREOC I don't see a conferral of jurisdiction under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977.

I suppose it could be under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth), which does confer some jurisdiction on State courts, but I need to find a reference for that.

 

[Freakstyler09]

I don't ger 15, when was dispute resolutions ever apart of customary law?

 

[sam5]

The tort of trespass and the Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901 may be how they enforce their property rights, but I'd say the right of a landowner to declare who is and isn't allowed on their property is probably property law.

I'll tell u a story my legal teacher told me once.

A little boy with autism once had a facination with birds. One day he was out walking and he somehow found himself in the rafters of a local church. He was up there cos he saw some birds up there.

The little boy lost his balance in the rafters, fell, and broke his neck (he lived, but hes even more of a vegetable now).

According to ur thinking, the case would resolve in nothing happening, because the little boy was trespassing on the church property under property law.

But thats not what happened.

The boy's parents sued under tort law, and received big money from the church, because the church had a duty of care for the boy even though he was trespassing.

Thats why theres something called public liability insurance. So that cases like that dont happen.

Thats one reason why i dont think its property law. i think it could be contract (by method of what i explained earlier) but it could also be tort, as according to this.

 

[ajdlinux]

Override, yes. But the question specifically said CHANGE.


Once again, it can outweigh, but not change? I'm not disagreeing with A, but the wording of D makes it correct aswell?

Overriding is changing.

 

[jj.oc]

11. D- this is wrong, I picked it cuz it was the closest thing to statute. I was gonna pick C dammit!
12. D
13. B
14. A - There was a question similar to this in a past paper and the answer had to do

can I ask why you think 11 is not d?
I personally wrote c but I thought I was wrong. isn't the act of the nsw parliament passing a law evidnce of it using powers outlined in the constitution? I could be wrong. this question took me ages to do coz I was like "since when can the nsw GOVERNMENT pass laws?"

 

[bmn]

It might be HREOC I don't see a conferral of jurisdiction under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977.

I suppose it could be under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth), which does confer some jurisdiction on State courts, but I need to find a reference for that.

As someone else has said, going by a past HSC one, its the local court.

can I ask why you think 11 is not d?
I personally wrote c but I thought I was wrong. isn't the act of the nsw parliament passing a law evidnce of it using powers outlined in the constitution? I could be wrong. this question took me ages to do coz I was like "since when can the nsw GOVERNMENT pass laws?"

Its C. Constitutional law refers to laws set out in the constitution, does it not? I wasn't too sure either, but by the process of elimination its C.

Overriding is changing.

Overriding is changing the law, but it is not changing that feature of common law specifically.

 

[ajdlinux]

I'll tell u a story my legal teacher told me once.

A little boy with autism once had a facination with birds. One day he was out walking and he somehow found himself in the rafters of a local church. He was up there cos he saw some birds up there.

The little boy lost his balance in the rafters, fell, and broke his neck (he lived, but hes even more of a vegetable now).

According to ur thinking, the case would resolve in nothing happening, because the little boy was trespassing on the church property under property law.

But thats not what happened.

The boy's parents sued under tort law, and received big money from the church, because the church had a duty of care for the boy even though he was trespassing.

Thats why theres something called public liability insurance. So that cases like that dont happen.

Thats one reason why i dont think its property law. i think it could be contract (by method of what i explained earlier) but it could also be tort, as according to this.

I'm not talking about duty of care. Duty of care is completely independent of property law, really. I'm talking about the right of, say, a shopping centre to give people banning notices - it's property law.

 

[mckensara]

I'll tell u a story my legal teacher told me once.

A little boy with autism once had a facination with birds. One day he was out walking and he somehow found himself in the rafters of a local church. He was up there cos he saw some birds up there.

The little boy lost his balance in the rafters, fell, and broke his neck (he lived, but hes even more of a vegetable now).

According to ur thinking, the case would resolve in nothing happening, because the little boy was trespassing on the church property under property law.

But thats not what happened.

The boy's parents sued under tort law, and received big money from the church, because the church had a duty of care for the boy even though he was trespassing.

Thats why theres something called public liability insurance. So that cases like that dont happen.

Thats one reason why i dont think its property law. i think it could be contract (by method of what i explained earlier) but it could also be tort, as according to this.

its property law.
under the law of real property, you have the right to use and enjoy your property according to preference
it is the preference of the gym that they dont want external people effing up there buisness so its under property because they OWN the gym, as to what they do with it.

Its not tort law because there is no civil wrong
its not contract law because there is no contract
and its not constitutional law because it has nothing to do with it

so even by process of elimination, its property

 

[ajdlinux]

As someone else has said, going by a past HSC one, its the local court.

The only past HSC question I remember about this said 'the Australian courts', not 'the Local Court' specifically. If s44 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) acts to confer jurisdiction on the Local Court, then Local Court would be correct - judging by the inclusion of HREOC/AHRC rather than the NSWADB they could be hinting towards federal law.

 

[sam5]

I'm not talking about duty of care. Duty of care is completely independent of property law, really. I'm talking about the right of, say, a shopping centre to give people banning notices - it's property law.

i know what ur saying. But i dont think its C. I think its A (even though i put B lol)

 

[ajdlinux]

its property law.
under the law of real property, you have the right to use and enjoy your property according to preference
it is the preference of the gym that they dont want external people effing up there buisness so its under property because they OWN the gym, as to what they do with it.

Its not tort law because there is no civil wrong
its not contract law because there is no contract
and its not constitutional law because it has nothing to do with it

so even by process of elimination, its property

+1. The only other possible option is tort law, and that's only if the trainers actually breach the rule, in which case they commit the tort of trespass. In the question, no wrong has actually been committed, it's asking what type of law gives them the authority to make the rule in the first place.

 

[mckensara]

i know what ur saying. But i dont think its C. I think its A (even though i put B lol)

its c - read my other post.

i am 100% sure that it is C.

it can't be tort law there is no civil wrong.

 

[Mudcake]

yep. I feel ur pain (i was like that with chem lol)

1. Which of the following is a type of private law?

(A) Administrative
(B) Constitutional
(C) Criminal
(D) Tort


2. What is an essential feature of a just law?

(A) It is know
(B) It is passed by parliament
(C) It has been considered by the high court
(D) It represents the application of natural justice

3. Which of the following is an example of state soverignty?

(A) Customary Law
(B) A citizen voting in an election
(C) A nation making laws for its citizens
(D) The right of NSW to ignore the Australian Constitution


4. A gym prohibits independent personal trainers from training their clients on its premises. What type of law allows the gym to do this?

(A) Tort
(B) Contract
(C) Property
(D) Constitutional


5. Which of the following rights is an example of a collective right?

(A) Economic
(B) Environmental
(C) Peace
(D) Self Determination

6. Kim has been arrested for shoplifting. In a court, he exercises hig right to remain silent. What type of right is he exercising?

(A) Civil
(B) Legal
(C) Human
(D) Constitutional

7. Which of the following is true of common law?

(A) It is based on precedent
(B) It may be changed by jurise
(C) It is based on the Constitution
(D) It cannot be changed by parliament

8. Which of the following has predictability as its outcome?

(A) Justice
(B) Rule of Law
(C) Self Determination
(D) International Treaties

9. Which is a feature of legal representation?

(A) It is not guarranteed for everyone.
(B) It is not available unless paid for
(C) It is guaranteed under NSW state law
(D) It is guaranteed under the Australian Constitution

10. Betty earns $5000 a week and Joan earns $100 a week. Both have been fined $100 for fare evasion. What is this an example of?

(A) Apparent Bias
(B) Natural Justice
(C) Discrimination
(D) Equality before the Law

11. The NSW government has passed a law to compensate victims of crime. What is this an example of?

(A) Common Law
(B) Natural Justice
(C) The rule of law
(D) Constitutional Law

12. Which feature best illustrates the operation of a civil law system?

(A) Natural Justice is not applied
(B) Most cases are heard before a jury
(C) The doctrine of precedent is relied upon
(D) Paper submissions are relied on more than oral argument

13. Some Australian citizens have been denied entry to America because of their criminal records. Which law has been applied?

(A) Private
(B) Domestic
(C) International
(D) International Treaty

14. Brian, a New Zealand citizen, has been refused entry into a Sydney hotel because of the colour of his skin. Brian decided to take action against the hotel. Which of the following is best able to enfore Brian's rights?

(A) The local court
(B) The Immigration Review Tribunal
(C) The New Zealand High Commission
(D) The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission

15. Which of the following is a feature of customary law?

(A) Native Title
(B) Terra Nullius
(C) Dsipute resolution
(D) The doctrine of precedent


That was a lot of work!

Firstly YOURE AWESOME ty! ok so i got:

1. D
2. A
3. C
4. B (i asked my legal teacher and he agrees its contract. it deff isnt the others)
5. D
6. B
7. A/D i dont remember which i picked in the end
8. B
9. A
10. D
11. A (but i thought they all sounded stupid)
12. D
13. B
14. A (changed from D because the local court could best ENFORCE it )
15. C

and now to compare to what everyone else thinks

 

[ajdlinux]

The only past HSC question I remember about this said 'the Australian courts', not 'the Local Court' specifically. If s44 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) acts to confer jurisdiction on the Local Court, then Local Court would be correct - judging by the inclusion of HREOC/AHRC rather than the NSWADB they could be hinting towards federal law.

Come to think of it, if they did say the answer was D, we can challenge it since it has been renamed the Australian Human Rights Commission by law.

 

[ajk92]

how does everyone remember what they put?

ahhahaha right on! im sitting here thinking....what was question 1?

 

[bmn]

Come to think of it, if they did say the answer was D, we can challenge it since it has been renamed the Australian Human Rights Commission by law.

Racism is covered by statute law, therefor it is best enforced at an Australia court, ie local court, rather than the AHRC.

 

[ajdlinux]

ahhahaha right on! im sitting here thinking....what was question 1?

You take your multiple choice section out of the exam, and possibly mark on it the ones you chose?

 

[ajdlinux]

Racism is covered by statute law, therefor it is best enforced at an Australia court, ie local court, rather than the AHRC.

But the Local Court isn't a court of general civil jurisdiction. The Local Court Act 2007 (NSW) only confers civil jurisdiction for a few types of claims, and discrimination isn't one of them, from what I can see, unless Commonwealth law confers it.

I'm still guessing I'm wrong somewhere in my argument and that the Local Court does have jurisdiction, I just can't see where from.

 

[Colonel.Burton]

On what grounds is it contract? by process of elimination its gotta be property

right to remain silent is your rights as the accused.. not sure where it is protected...

I had the same train of thought. I was thinking the trainer.. paid to use the gym ? thats a contract right there and an implied term was not to train their clients on the premises. Seems logical, property law did not seem at all logical.

 

[ajdlinux]

I had the same train of thought. I was thinking the trainer.. paid to use the gym ? thats a contract right there and an implied term was not to train their clients on the premises. Seems logical, property law did not seem at all logical.

It doesn't say that they were.