Business Law

This document discusses various issues related to business law and commercial law in Australia. It covers topics such as duty of care, breach of duty, damages, and defenses in negligence suits. The case laws and relevant rules are also mentioned.

Running Head: BUSINESS LAW 0
COMMERCIAL LAW
AUSTRALIA
[DATE]
[Company name]
[Company address]

BUSINESS LAW 1
Issue 1
Can Peter claim a duty towards the Wollongong Council?
Rule 1
The party must properly follow the established duty while bringing a negligence suit aiming for
the recovery of damages as of from another party. Where the term duty indicates a legal
obligation which is to be owed by the parties for maintaining a standardized care while the
commission or non-commission of certain acts. The recovery of damages in the case of
negligence of suit cannot be filed if the carrying duty is not owed by the defendant. The
judgment passed by Lord Atkin in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 562 determined
that “neighbor test” must be used to analyses the persons that whether he owes a certain carrying
duty or not. Further it was stated that the plaintiff had underwent the state of illness immediately
after having the ginger beer that had been purchased from a snack bar, the existence of a
deceased snail was seen inside the beer bottle that had caused illness to the applicant. Thus on
the basis of neighbor test element of care was present in part of defendant. The test suggest that
the parties must be proximately related and the occurring risk must be based upon the fact where
duty was established (Barker, 2012).
Application 1
In the given case study it was seen that main authority in the Wollongong are was the authority
in the Wollongong council who could actually be held responsible for all the upcoming
investment projects. Just because Peter was planning to invest in the same area there existed a
proximal relationship between the parties. But had not received any accurate knowledge
regarding the upcoming assignments so the risk of damage may be suffered as its negative
consequence.

BUSINESS LAW 2
Conclusion 1
Hence to conclude yes Peter can claim a duty of care towards the Wollongong Council.
Issue 2
The major issue in this case was that was the duty broken by Wollongong Council?
Rule 2
The violation of duty is required to be established in contrast to the offender, by aggrieved party
so to recover damages in a suit for negligence. For determining whether the duty was breached
or not the court had applied an “objective test”. In a leading case of Vaughan v Menlove (1837) 3
Bing N.C 467, the loss was undergone by the applicant due to his haystack which had caught fire
as the respondent was not able to uphold a standard of care. Further the offender stated that with
the best of his knowledge the risk of fire there was not thinkable. Having the best judgment was
not sufficient reason for it and this was ruled by the court. So the parties must take up those steps
which are fitting and sensible in accordance to the general public in that particular situation and
all these must be done in accordance with the use of objective test policy (Cane & Trindade,
1993).
Application 2
As suggested in the case study the people are to read properly all the details mentioned in the
certificate regarding all the future projects which may affect the investment, issued by the
Wollongong Council before acquiring the land in the area of Wollongong. All the information
regarding the projects of widening of roads were very clearly mentioned in the certificate which
could have adversely affected the people while investing their money in the projects.
Conclusion 2
Therefore it is concluded that the caring duty was breached by Wollongong council.

BUSINESS LAW 3
Issue 3
Whether Peter can ask for redressed of the damages given to him by Wollongong Council and
were their acts too remote?
Rule 3
There must be a certain kind of relationship amongst the damage suffered by the parties and the
mistake done by the defendant, at the time of filing a suit for recovery of damages. This is
because too remote damages cannot be recovered by negligence suit. This was clearly seen in a
leading case of Wagon Mound no.1 (1961) AC 388 it was determined by the court that due to the
negligent behavior of few members the entire Wharf had got damaged because of the leakage in
the harbour of Sydney. Therefore the claim was rejected by stating that the damages were too
remote (Lunney, 2017).
Application 3
Due to the presence of element of causation could not held Wollongong Council liable to the loss
suffered by Peter this is because the damages are not too remote as it had mentioned all its
clauses in the certificate provided for reading to the people prior to devoting in the Wollongong
area.
Conclusion 3
Thus to sum up with the case it can be held up that as the damages were not so remote the
Wollongong Council cannot be held liable for the loss.

BUSINESS LAW 4
Issue 4
Can Wollongong Council get the defense of contributory negligence?
Rule 4
In defense of contributory negligence the court provides recovery amounts for the damages to the
parties who are unable to continue with a standard of care for one own self. The exact fact was
seen in the judgment of Imbree v McNeilly (2008) HCA 40 case. Here the applicant offered his
car to respondent having a very little experience of driving or in short he was just learning
driving.The court here decreassed the amount of damages of both the parties as they were
equlaly involved in the accident (Stewart & Stuhmcke, 2017).
Application 4
Similarly Peter also in the given case study had not gone through the certificate provided by the
council properly before taking a decision for investing. In the very like way the council also did
not have any info that Peter had undergone that mistake, nor Peter had any proof which could
prove the faults of the council.
Conclusion 4
Therefore defense of contributory negligence cannot be attained by the Wollongong Council.

BUSINESS LAW 5
Issue 5
Can the Council get the defense of voluntary assumption of risks?
Rule 5
Defense of voluntary risk means that the recovery suit cannot be filed by a party if he accepts
that he had the knowledge of involved risk in the act so done. To attain this defense the
following elements are needed to be present, firstly voluntary consent given by the party and
next formation of agreement amongst them prior to the causation of the event. The judgment
passed by the court in Wooldridge v Summer &Anor (1963) 2 QB 43 case stated that for a
specific act the claimant must have the information of risk within it (Stickley, 2016).
Application 5
In this case there was no formation of agreement between Peter and the Council and neither had
he consented to accept the involved risk.
Conclusion 5
Therefore in this case study this defense was also not applied

BUSINESS LAW 6
Issue 6
Whether the recovery can be attained by Peter due to mistake of Wollongong or not?
Rule 6
Damages for pure economic loss cannot be recovered i.e. the one did not resulted in the physical
injury to the property. However in the leading case of Hedley Byrnr & Co v Heller (1963) 3
WLR 101 here the court determined that party had right to get the reimbursement designed for
all those damages which were caused due to misstatement of other party (Trindade, et al., 2007).
Application 6
Though the Wollongong Council was unable to provide any exact info in its certificate, still Peter
cannot claim a penalty for the damages undergone by him. Although they were purely economic
in nature.
Conclusion 6
Thus Peter can claim for recovery by the Council for the negligence of the council.

BUSINESS LAW 7
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barker, K., 2012. The Law of Torts in Australia. Australia: Oxford University Press.
Cane, p. & Trindade, F. A., 1993. The Law of Torts in Australia. Australia: Oxford University
Press.
Lunney, M., 2017. A History of Australian Tort Law 1901-1945. Australia: Cambridge
University Press.
Stewart, P. & Stuhmcke, A., 2017. Australian Principles of tort law. Australia: Federation Press.
Stickley, A., 2016. Australian Torts Law. Australia: LexisNexis Butterworths.
Trindade, F. A., Cane, P. & Lunney, M., 2007. The Law of Torts in Australia. Australia: Oxford
University Press.
CASE LAWS
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 562
Vaughan v Menlove (1837) 3 Bing N.C 467,
Hedley Byrnr & Co v Heller (1963) 3 WLR 101
Imbree v McNeilly (2008) HCA 40
Wooldridge v Summer &Anor (1963) 2 QB 43
Wagon Mound no.1 (1961) AC 388