Torts Law Problems and Solutions

This assignment delves into various aspects of tort law. It presents a series of problems requiring the application of legal principles related to negligence, misrepresentation, and consumer protection under Australian law. Each problem is followed by a detailed analysis outlining the relevant legal rules, their application to the specific facts, and a conclusion regarding the potential liability of parties involved.

Question 1
Issue: the issue in this case is if the agreement signed by Susan is legally enforceable. For this
purpose, it needs to be seen if the parties had the intention of creating legal relations. Similarly, it
also needs to be seen if the contract has been vitiated on the grounds of undue influence.
Rule: the purpose of introducing the requirement of the parties to have the intention of entering
into, media relations have been introduced by the contract law for the purpose of excluding the
cases that are inappropriate for action by the court. The reason is that every contract does not
result in the creation of a legally enforceable contract. For example, when two friends have
decided to meet at a pub, there can be a moral duty to honor this promise but there is no legal
duty to honor such a promise. The reason is that generally in case of such agreements, it is not
the intention of the parties to be legally bound and the law also follows the wishes of the parties
(Jones v Padavatton, 1969). For the purpose of deciding which agreements can be enforced by
the law and have the intention of entering into legal relations, a distinction has been drawn by the
law between social and domestic agreements on one hand and the agreements made in
commercial context, in the other (Balfour v Balfour [1919).
Similarly in the present case, it also needs to be seen if the contract is not vitiated by undue
influence. It can be said that undue influence is present, in case of an agreement when the
contract has been created due to the pressure falling short of duress (CIBC Mortgages v Pitt,
1994). Therefore the party that has to face such pressure, may have a cause of action in equity to
set aside the contract on the basis of undue influence (Bank of Credit & Commerce International
v Aboody, 1990). Undue influence is present when the relationship present between the parties
had been exploited by one party in northern to gain an unfair advantage.

Application: in the present case, Susan had reluctantly signed the agreement with provided that
in case of a divorce, she will take only $100,000. As the contract was signed, it can be concluded
that the parties had the intention of creating legal relations. However, the present contract is
initiated by undue influence. Tom had exploited the relationship with Susan in order to gain an
unfair advantage. Therefore it is clear that Susan can avoid the contract on the basis of undue
influence.
Conclusion: in the present case, Susan may avoid the contract signed by her on the basis of
undue influence.

Question 2
Issue: The issue in this case is if Jason can enforce the contract against Steve on the grounds of
promissory estoppel.
Rule: The doctrine of promissory estoppel provides that a promise can be enforced by the law,
although the promise has been made without the presence of consideration, if the promisor had
made the promise to the promisee and the promisee had been relied on such promise to his or her
detainment (Crabb V. Arun DC, 1976). The purpose behind the introduction of promissory
estoppel is to prevent the promisor from claiming later on that an underlying promise should not
be enforced by the law (Central London Property trust Ltd V. High Tree House Ltd., 1974).
Application: in the present case, Jason issued an advertisement regarding the sale of his car.
Steave inspected the car thoroughly and told Jason that he was ready to purchase the car if it had
a turbo engine, leather seats and tinted windows. Relying on this statement, Jason spent $50,000
on installing all these items in the car. However, later on, Steve refuses to purchase the car. In
such a case, the doctrine of promissory estoppel can be applied and Steve can be made to
purchase the car (Total Metal Manufacturing Ltd V. Tungsten Electric Co Ltd., 1955). In such a
case, it can be conceded that the contract is present between the parties even if the consideration
is not present (Hughes V. Metropolitan Railway, 1877).
Conclusion: On the basis of the doctrine of promissory estoppel, Steve can be held legally bound
to purchase the car from Jason.

Question 3
Issue: The issue in the present case is if Carl can be held liable for negligence and if any
defenses available to him.
Rule: in order to establish that the defendant was negligent and as a result, is liable for the
injuries suffered by the claimant, the claimant is required to establish all the elements that are
necessary for the purpose of bringing successful claim in negligence (Donoghue v Stevenson,
1932). The necessary elements for a successful claim in negligence are as follows:-
 Duty: The defendant should owe a duty of care to the claimant.
 Breach of duty: Such duty of care should be breached by the defendant.
 Causation: As a result of their breach of duty of care, loss or injury should have been
caused to the claimant.
 Proximate cause: The breach of duty should be the proximate cause of the injury or the
loss that has been caused to the claimant.
 Damages: Due to the breach of duty, some damage should have been suffered by the
claimant.
All these elements should be present in other to have successful claim in negligence.
However, a defense is available against the claim of negligence. This is known as the defense of
contributory negligence (Caparo Industries pIc v Dickman, 1990). Contributory negligence is
used to describe the conduct as a result of which a person has created an unreasonable risk
regarding his or her own safety (Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital, 1969). It is believed
that every person has a duty to act in the same way as any other reasonable person. When the
person has not acted in this way and suffered an injury, the person can be held entirely or

partially liable for such an injury, even if there was another party involved in the accident (Revill
v Newbery, 1996).
Application: in the present case, all the elements required for a successful claim in negligence
are present. As a result, it can be claimed that Carl has been negligent in the present case.
However, a defense is available to Carl. He can claim that Harry had also contributed in
negligence when he decided to eat the sashimi as he was very hungry.
Conclusion: In this case, Carl was negligent but a defense is available to him that Harry had also
contributed in negligence.

Question 4
Issue: The issue is if Betty has any rights provided by the Australian consumer law against the
false and misleading claims made on the website of Apple.
Rule: The Australian consumer law provides that businesses cannot make incorrect statements or
that may result in creating a false impression (Concrete Constructions (NSW) Pty Limited v
Nelson, 1990). This rule is applicable in case of advertising, product packaging and information
that have been provided to consumers by the company or its staff (Houghton v Arms, 2006).
Similarly, the rule is also applicable to the statements made by the businesses, including
testimonials on websites or social media pages (Re Henjo Investments Pty Ltd., 1988).
Application: in the present case, it is clear that a misleading statement has been made on the
website of Apple. Such conduct has been prohibited by section 18 of the Australian Consumer
Law (Perre v Apand Pty Ltd.,1999). Therefore the remedies provided by the ACL in this regard
are available to Betty.
Conclusion: Betty has the rights and remedies provided by the ACL for making false and
misleading statements on the website of the company.

References
Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571
Bank of Credit & Commerce International v Aboody [1990] 1 QB 923
Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital [1969] 1 QB 428
Caparo Industries pIc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605
Central London Property trust Ltd V. High Tree House Ltd. (1974)1 KB 130
CIBC Mortgages v Pitt [1994] 1 AC 200
Concrete Constructions (NSW) Pty Limited v Nelson [1990] HCA 17
Crabb V. Arun DC (1976) 1 Ch 179
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
Houghton v Arms [2006] HCA 59
Hughes V. Metropolitan Railway (1877)2 App Case 439
Jones v Padavatton [1969] 1 WLR 328
Perre v Apand Pty Ltd [1999] HCA 36
Re Henjo Investments Pty Limited [1988] FCA
Revill v Newbery [1996] 2 WLR 239
Total Metal Manufacturing Ltd V. Tungsten Electric Co Ltd. (1955) 1 WLR 761