Law 1100 (Legal Framework) Tutorial Activities

This tutorial covers topics such as proving negligence in a slip and fall case, possible remedies and defenses, and false misrepresentation in contracts.

Running head: LAW 1100 (LEGAL FRAMEWORK)- TUTORIAL ACTIVITIES 1
Law 1100 (legal framework) Tutorial activities
Name
Institution

LAW 1100 (LEGAL FRAMEWORK)- TUTORIAL ACTIVITIES 2
Law 1100 (legal framework) Tutorial activities
What Jean needs to Establish
In a bid to succeed in an action against East End Four Corners Supermarket, Jean has to
prove that the slipping and falling was a result of negligence on the part of the store manager, the
employees or the supermarket. The question with this regard is whether an extra caution on the
part of the property owners would have avoided the accident (Gibson, 2010). In a bid to prove
this, only one of the following need to be proven: i) that the store manager or his employees
ought to have known of the dangerous condition since any reasonable man in that position would
have known about the hazardous condition and fixed it, ii) that the store manager or his
employee were actually aware of the floor condition and failed to fix or do something about it
and iii) that the store manager or his employees caused the slipping condition (FindLaw, n.d.).
From the foregoing, it is evident that the first situation would be the cause of litigation in this
case since the store manager acknowledges that they were not aware how the grapes got on the
floor and they were definitely not the cause of the spilling condition.
When proving the first scenario, Jean will have to demonstrate the fact that property
owners have a duty to maintain reasonably safe conditions in the supermarket and reasonable
action was not taken to mitigate the risks of sliding and falling resulting to injury. There are a
number of questions that can help determine the reasonableness of the store owner’s actions in
Jean’s case. First is how long the defect had been present on the floor prior to the accident.
Secondly is what kind of daily cleaning activities were being conducted by the store manager.
From the case, the store manager states that store policy was to do checks every 15 minutes of
the floor in the fruit section and this counts as a reasonable action. Thirdly is whether there was
legitimate reason for the slippery object –the misplaced grapes- to be there and finally, if there

LAW 1100 (LEGAL FRAMEWORK)- TUTORIAL ACTIVITIES 3
was legitimate reason for it to be there, did such reason exist at the time of the accident. The fact
that the grapes were there because of spillage means there was no legitimate reason whatsoever
for them to be there at the particular time.
Possible Remedies
If Jean successfully proves that the store acted negligently, then the remedy likely to be
given in such a case are damages. Damages are often in terms of compensation which include
medical bills, lost wages, emotional distress, pain and suffering (Barker et al., 2012).
Possible Defenses
Carelessness, clumsiness or contributory/comparative negligence are possible defenses
on the part of the store owners (FindLaw, n.d.). Simply because one slipped and fell does not
mean the property owner was negligent as one owes himself the duty to be careful when
traversing certain places. Property owners are not responsible for injuries that a reasonable
person would have avoided (Barker et al., 2012). . As for comparative negligence, if the
occurrence of the accident was contributed by the fact that Jean acted negligently in the buildup
of the accident, then the store can mitigate damages to be awarded. This is possible where the
complainant was engaging in other activities that contributed to the slip and fall.

LAW 1100 (LEGAL FRAMEWORK)- TUTORIAL ACTIVITIES 4
Question 2
Issue
Whether Norris can successfully sue estate agent Evatt for statements he made about the motel
business at Port Stephens.
Rules
i) Section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law in the Competition and Consumer Act
2010 provides that “An individual must not, in trading activity or commerce, engage
in conduct that is deceptive or misleading or has the potential of misleading or
deceiving the other party into contracting.”
ii) Contracts entered through false misrepresentation are voidable at the expense of the
misrepresented party.
Application
False misrepresentation in contracts occur when a false statement is made by a party to
induce another to enter into a contractual relationship. There are a number of aspects that make
statements made in contracts misrepresentations. The statement is i) made by a seller who ii) has
knowledge that it is false but still iii) makes it carelessly and recklessly despite the fact that he or
she does not believe in its truth (Corones, 2014). The principle of false misrepresentation was
portrayed in the case in ACCC v Telstra Corporation Limited (2007) 244 ALR 470. The
defendants advertised their network to be having ‘coverage everywhere you needed it’ when in
reality, it did not. Despite even referring to a disclaimer on the company’s website, the defendant
was held liable for misleading or deceptive conduct to her consumers, contrary to section 18 of
the Act.

LAW 1100 (LEGAL FRAMEWORK)- TUTORIAL ACTIVITIES 5
However, while proving that a statement amounts to misrepresentation, the plaintiff has a
burden to demonstrate the following. First, that the statement in question was false in nature.
Norris has to prove that the assertion “the business would be a gold mine” was not a true
statement at the time it was being made. He has to prove that even at the time the motel was
being sold, the tourist numbers had been exaggerated and were nothing close to the perceived
numbers. Secondly, he has to show that the statement was more than a mere trade puff. Trade
puffs allow salespersons to make exaggerated statements or expressions without being legally
bound to them (Gibson, 2010). They are just commendations and nothing more. Saying that a car
is in good shape is a trade puff. Stating that a business would be a gold mine easily qualifies as a
trade puff owing to its ambiguity and its unspecific nature. The statement also has to be one of
fact and not just an opinion. The general rule is that mere opinions do not amount to
misrepresentations. Finally, Norris will have to show that he indeed relied on the statement to
make up his mind on purchasing the motel. From the case, it is evident that this was not the case
as Norris still sought an accountant’s advice on the investment before making a decision to
purchase.
Conclusion
From the foregoing, Norris would not be able to successfully sue estate agent Evatt for
statements he made about the motel business at Port Stephens as such were mere trade puffs and
failed on the requirements of false misrepresentation.

LAW 1100 (LEGAL FRAMEWORK)- TUTORIAL ACTIVITIES 6
References
ACCC v Telstra Corporation Limited (2007) 244 ALR 470.
Barker, K., Cane, P., Lunney, M., & Trindade, F. (2012). The law of torts in Australia. (5th ed.).
Oxford University Press.
Competition and Consumer Act 2010.
Corones, S. G. (2014). Competition law in Australia. Thomson Reuters Australia, Limited.
Findlaw (n.d.). Proving Fault in Slip and Fall Accidents. Retrieved from
https://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/proving-fault-in-slip-and-fall-
accidents.html
Gibson, A. (2018). Value pack business law + myBusLawLab with etext (10th ed.). Melbourne.