LEGL1001 Foundations of Law

Question one

In relation to the above planned contract of sale of the property, and based on the status of the property including its nearness to the livestock farm and being located in a floodplain area restricting the types of houses to be build, there are various risks that both the client and any other party may suffer. The sale contract is centrally to the provisions of section 18 of the Australian consumer law since it involves misleading information (Australian consumer law 2012).

In accordance to this provisions and by upholding the facts and judgement of the case of McWilliams Winnes Pty Ltd V McDonald’s systems of Australian systems, the client engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct in the sale of the land (McWilliam’s Wines Pty Ltd v McDonald’s System of Australia Pty Ltd, 1980). As a result of the deceptive contract, the client and any other party are likely to encounter risks of loss and risks of damages. The risk of loss occurs in the sense that the land may not serve the buyer in the intended purpose due to its restriction. On the same note, risk of damages will occur since the contract is centrally to the provisions of Australian consumer law and it may thus be declared void. In order to avoid such risks, I would advise the client to disclose the fair and exact information pertaining the land so as to avoid future disputes.

Question 2

What are the legal issues in this scenario?

For the instance of the case above of Sandra, it is clear that there a legal issue that is being involved because of the property that she owns through the purchasing of the lounge with the loan amount. According to Australian Consumer law, it is clear that the rights of a consumer are said to be consumer guarantees. For this one Sandra is supposed to be protected by the seller of the lounge for the purchase she did. There is legal issue of consumer guarantees and this is under the laws of Australia. When Sandra purchased the lounge, it was to be a guaranteed to her for a while. There is another legal issue of consumer protection and this is in the event when Sandra gives purchases the lounge suite and they do not give her the terms and condition well. It resulted to the event of losing her salary because she thought that the loan that she had applied was zero interest. For this case she was supposed to review these documents well and know more in details that are in warranty rights in relations to the buying of the lounge and clear to her before giving her this loan because this failure of clarification resulted in the deduction of her payment (Mann & Roberts, 2016).

Question 3

Advice to Tom on whether he has a cause of action in negligence against Stephen

Basically, the tort requires the plaintiff to prove some elements to hold a party liable for the negligence case. With reference to such elements, the plaintiff must prove presence of duty, breach of the duty and the injuries or damages suffered as a result of the breach of the duty. By considering the case of Tom and Stephen, Tom has all the grounds to establish a negligence case against Stephen. For instance, Stephen committed a tort of deceit whereby he gave wrong advice to Tom. As a social media contributor, Stephen has the obligation of giving fair advice to the clients which constitutes to duty of care as observed in the case of Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Mourabak (Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Mourabak 2009)  

In this case, Stephen is obliged to take all reasonable steps in ensuring that the advice he offers to the clients do not result in any kind of harm including losses. Besides, in line with this duty, Stephen offered a deceitful information to Tom hence leading to the breach of duty that he owned to Tom. It is through the deceitful advice that made Tom to experience heavy levy of paying four additional works on the common property. In this case, it is sufficient enough to consider Stephen to have breached the duty of offering reasonable advice to Tom.

In addition, it is sufficient to consider Stephen not to bother about the impacts that may result from the false advice that he gave to Tom hence he negligently offered deceitful advice. It is true that Tom suffered a lot of costs from the advice. In this case, the costs suffered are considered as the damages that resulted from the advice hence all the three elements were associated with Stephen. By considering all these elements, Tom has reasonable grounds in establishing a negligence case against Stephen under the grounds of tort of deceit. 

References

Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Mourabak (2009) 239 CLR 420

Mann, R. A., & Roberts, B. S. (2016). Business law and the regulation of business. Cengage Learning.

McWilliam’s Wines Pty Ltd v McDonald’s System of Australia Pty Ltd (1980) 33 ALR 394

Section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law and environmental issues

We provide unmatched quality assignment writing services for all subjects in your curriculum. The most common subjects we cover include Maths, English, Humanities, Social Sciences, Management and more. Our experts have acquired their respective PhDs in specific disciplines from reputed universities. Tell us the subject you need ghostwriters for. We will assign a suitable ghostwriter accordingly. We are not restricted to writing assignments only. We also provide top-notch proofreading services and essay writing services. The essay writers are well-versed in all types of essays such as persuasive, expository, narrative, argumentative, persuasive, etc. Whether you need math homework help or English homework help, we have the right expert for you.