Willow owns and operates a shop selling books and gifts, 'All the World's a Page' in Paddington, Sydney. Willow supplies books both as a wholesaler and retailer. On Monday, Dawn attended at the shop and chose and purchased 7 books. Dawn was also interested in purchasing a small display case but the only one available was in pieces in a box and required construction. Willow agreed that if Dawn wished to purchase and pay for the display case immediately, she would construct the display case and Dawn could collect it on Tuesday. Dawn agreed and decided she would also collect the books the next day.
On Monday, Willow also received an order for 22 copies of the book 'Masterchef the Musical', from Buffy, the owner of a book shop in Parramatta. The 22 books were dispatched in Willow's delivery truck with a further 70 'Masterchef the Musical' books to fill two other orders in Parramatta.
Unfortunately, on Monday night, an electrical fault in the shop next door caused a fire which spread to , 'All the World's a Page' and the shop and its contents were destroyed. Dawn arrived to collect the 7 books and the display case on Tuesday morning, but finding them destroyed, demanded the return of her money. Willow refused.
In a further blow, the delivery truck was involved in an accident causing great damage to the books. When Buffy finally received the books she refused to accept them because of their seriously damaged condition, and refused to pay for the order, insisting that it was not her loss to bear.
Willow is your client and seeks your advice as to who must bear the loss of the various goods.
Give reasons for your conclusions.
Personally, I putted "states, IGO, NGO" but not sure at all. Concerning, self-defense I argued that there was, but some friend of mine did not. Actually, I think it depends of your argumentation, you must at least have the good structure, with first re conditions for a self-defense, and then apply the facts to the conditions...ect And if, you can reasonably argue that each conditions are fulfilled or not, then I think your answer cannot be wrong...
Anonymous Compact Disc
5 months ago
Hello, can someone share exam assigment answer example (legal research and reasoning) please
In the first question of the mock exam, about Lord Hastings, the answer is “No she cannot, as both the Lord and Purdy knew that Hastings meant the stables by ‘wine cellar’.” My question is why can she not claim the stables since they both knew what he meant ? Is this an error ? If its not can somebody explain?
In civil law, the subjective interpretation of the word is meant. In this case, the Lord meant the stables when he said wine cellar. And since Purdy was also aware of this meaning, the wine cellar means stables and therefore she cannot claim the stables. If she was not aware of the meaning, the meaning that a reasonable person would give to this intention is decisive, meaning that a reasonable person would think wine cellar is just a wine cellar
In the exam: will we be assessed on the individual facts, rulings, and opinions of the cases covered in the course or will we simply need to be able to apply our knowledge of those cases, rulings, and opinions to cases needing to be solved?
From the practice exam I got the impression that we won't be concerned a lot with case law, but rather the "general principles" from the book. But especially for the most important ones, like Donoghue v Stevenson, Van Gend & Loos, etc., I assume we should know the basic facts and rationale.
Is the intro to law mock exam usually fairly close to what can be expected from the real thing?
I've found that some mock exams/past papers more adequately prepare you than others, so I didn't know if anyone had insight into where this one may fall.