question 8 hsc 2003 (1 Viewer)

[= Jennifer =]

Chris bought a packet of cereal from a corner shop. She opened it and discovered pieces of metal mixed with the cereal. Chris wishes to take legal action against the manufacturer of the cereal.

Which type of law will she use?

A Contract law
B Tort law
C Criminal law
D Property law

i thought it was B because it was similar to the donoghue vs. stevenson case how come this is wrong? the BOS says A is the answer can some one explain to me why it is not B

 

[amandaz]

i thought it was B too. i rang advice line n they said its A. this is b/c
- apparently the purchaser enters into a contract with the manufacturer or something like that
- i thought it was B b/c it was very similar to the donoghueVstevenson case with the snail n the ginger bottle, but the reason y its not is b/c chris is not harmed in any way therefore it is not duty of care
i hope that makes sense

 

[hiphophorray123]

its definently contract law....whenever you have a question where someone buys something and its faulty or something its always contract law

 

[millencolinstar]

yeh i remember going over that in class... definately contract..

 

[~*HSC 4 life*~]

theres another thread on this question by lazarus possibly? not sure, do a search!

 

[Teoh]

...

i thought it was B because it was similar to the donoghue vs. stevenson case how come this is wrong? the BOS says A is the answer can some one explain to me why it is not B

I'm thinking not everyone knows about donoghue vs. stevenson, as its only in consumers? So the comparison can't be made...but I don't know...

 

[mcjaffa]

well i thought it was A (contract) because she bought the cereal not expecting there to be any metal bits in it... thus a contract existed between the cereal manufacturer and chris... i don't know, hard to explain, but it's my twisted logic and i understand it

 

[:: dreami ::]

tort's NON CONTRACT law

donoghue v stevenson was actually the precedent that established the privity of contract rule and the notion of manufacturer's product liability. therfore this case was a tort law, but cases after this should be contract.

hope you get what i mean

 

[= Jennifer =]

I'm thinking not everyone knows about donoghue vs. stevenson, as its only in consumers? So the comparison can't be made...but I don't know...

actually donoghue vs. stevenson i remember from prelim core as well

thanks for all your help guys

 

[Teoh]

I hate legal studies.

 

[MouNtY]

i chose B as well, coz i thought that because of the privity of contract thing, Chris couldn't have a contract because he'd bought it from the corner shop.
so if product liability "refers to the liability of any or all parties along the chain of manufacture of any product for damage caused by that product." how can he sue based on that coz the metal being in the cereal didn't do any damage, it was just in there, it's not like he ate it.......

ok i'm confusing myself now, i'm gonna stop

 

[Espo15]

Check the solutions yo!
Its contract law.

 

[MouNtY]

yeah we know but, but no one has yet come up wit a clear explaination on why it can't be tort

 

[mcjaffa]

well, it COULD be but the multiples ask for the *best* answer - tort is when someone has to rectify a wrong they've committed to someone else - chris bought the cereal under the presumption that there would be no metal pieces mixed in with it. thus a contract existed between her and the manufacturer.