Part B seems too straight forward the exclausion clause looks like it's gonna hold right? unless you can argue the language doesn't stop liability against the individual company or they weren't in operation of the 4 corners of the contract... right right?>?
-
Looking for HSC notes and resources? Check out our Notes & Resources page
CLAW1001 Thread (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter ToO LaZy ^*
- Start date
ToO LaZy ^*
n/a
there were never any statements made by Red regarding the odometer, therefore negligent mistatement does not apply
ToO LaZy ^*
n/a
don't assume anything. always base your argument on the FACTS.
...or so i was told by my tutor
...or so i was told by my tutor
I don't know if i should mention about the 4 corners rule. The facts says "Pharmco received several orders for the vaccine and Ring-Ting arranged for Transmore to deliver the vaccine". It doesnt specifically say that Ring-Ting arranged to for Transmore to deliver the vaccine to Pharmco or to Pharmco's customers. If it was to Pharmco, then the 4 corners rule can be raised and exclusion clauses are non-effectual.jpr333 said:
ideas?
myg0t
myg0t
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2004
- Messages
- 231
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2004
Just quickly, in relation to Part A - the fact he signed indicates he intended to be bound regardless if he read it.
Does this mean Red is not liable to anything and the K is still enforced. Or do we refer to terms implied by statute law, namely the Sale of Goods Act and the Trade PRactices Act where he may be liable?
Does this mean Red is not liable to anything and the K is still enforced. Or do we refer to terms implied by statute law, namely the Sale of Goods Act and the Trade PRactices Act where he may be liable?
"Does this mean Red is not liable to anything and the K is still enforced."
What do you mean? He signed the K, but Red still breached the terms of the K. There was no exclusion clause in the K to limit Red's liability.
What do you mean? He signed the K, but Red still breached the terms of the K. There was no exclusion clause in the K to limit Red's liability.
ToO LaZy ^*
n/a
fark...how the hell do i fit this assignment under the word limit.
my part is 750+ and i hvnt written the intro, nor have i talked about TPA,SOGA. (do i need to?..)
btw..what did everyone say about the model and new tyres?
misrep/mere misrep/conditn/warrranty?>..
this is all so so confusing :S
my part is 750+ and i hvnt written the intro, nor have i talked about TPA,SOGA. (do i need to?..)
btw..what did everyone say about the model and new tyres?
misrep/mere misrep/conditn/warrranty?>..
this is all so so confusing :S
myg0t
myg0t
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2004
- Messages
- 231
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2004
The reference of the model and tyres is a condition.ToO LaZy ^* said:
Brown would not have entered into the contract if Red didn't say this, an act of negligent mistatement. Using the paragraph from cheif justice Jordan re: luna park case.