Business Law

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.