To people in LAWS1061 (torts!) (1 Viewer)

[Inferno]

Torts AND *Contracts*? Are you a grad student or something?

The case seems weighted heavily in favour of the respondents, so looks like you have less legwork to do anyway haha

 

[Lazarus]

mmhmm... the woes/perks of being a transfer student.

Well, yeah, I guess, so we might win in law, but I think we may actually have to put in a bit of effort to have a chance at winning the moot itself. As a random sidenote; your site is impressive.

 

[jay2000]

Originally posted by Inferno
A non-delegable duty was owed by DNPW to Hui and Mark (but not John). No duty was owed to DSR.

Yeh, i actually thought the the non-delegable duty section was the hardest part of of the assignment. DNPW wasnt so hard, but DSR i thought i totally f**ked up my reasoning. How did other people go about concluding DSR had no non-delegable duty?

 

[Lazarus]

I said:

1) There doesn't seem to be any plausible argument for the existence of a 'special relationship' between the DSR and park visitors.

2) Whilst the DSR had the power to refill the hole, it didn't really have the level of control that seemed to be required by the cases, nor did it have a duty to refill the hole (one which could have been enforced by a visitor).

3) Hmm, it seems I forgot to look at the vulnerability of visitors in relation to the DSR. But, had I done it I would have probably argued it could be satisfied.