logo

LW651- The Australian Consumer Law - MacTools Ltd Tort Law

6 Pages1332 Words82 Views
   

University of kent

   

The Law of Tort (LW651)

   

Added on  2020-03-01

About This Document

In this report, It has been provided with the scenario that MacTools Ltd are the manufacturer of a drill which was sold to Maulan. This report will discuss the rules, the manufacturers have a duty of care to the buyer or the users of the manufactured item. In this case, Maulan had provided Aurora with the drill for use. Thus, MacTools Ltd has a duty of care in relation to Aurora.

LW651- The Australian Consumer Law - MacTools Ltd Tort Law

   

University of kent

   

The Law of Tort (LW651)

   Added on 2020-03-01

ShareRelated Documents
Running head: TORT LAWTort LawName of the StudentName of the UniversityAuthor note
LW651- The Australian Consumer Law - MacTools Ltd Tort Law_1
1TORT LAWIssue The issue in this case is to determine whether the MacTools Ltd would be liable forManufacturers liability in accordance to the Australian consumer law (Schedule 2 of theCompetition and Consumer Act 2010) and the provisions of common law (Tort of negligence) LawIn Australia, the liability of manufacturers is based on ACL and the provisions ofcommon law negligence. According to the provisions of common law a manufacturers is responsible for any harmwhich is caused to the uses or buyers of its manufactured goods through their uses as providedthrough Donoghue vs Stevenson 1932 AC 522.Duty of care is said to be found only if the person who is alleged to have the duty of carecan foresee that the other person can be injured by his or her action. The process is usuallydetermined through the Chapman v Hearse (1961) 106 CLR 112test, however in Australiawhere pre determined principles are given more relevance manufacturers are liable for the anydamage which is done to the consumers with respect to the use of goods. Violation of duty is also important to establish a claim against the manufacturer. Theconcept denotes that there must be a breach of consumer guarantees or the ability to act as areasonable person is specific circumstances to establish the breach of the existing duty of care asaid by the judges in Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850. As provided by the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) in Australia the standard of caretaken by a person is determined through the consideration of four element including the
LW651- The Australian Consumer Law - MacTools Ltd Tort Law_2
2TORT LAWprobability of harm if the precautions are not taken, the seriousness of the injury, the burden oftaking the precautions and the utility of the activity through which the risk is created (Goldberg,Sebok & Zipursky, 2016). Causation denotes the actual injury caused to the plaintiff. The principles of causation asused in the case of Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd v The Dredge “Willemstedt” (1976) 136 CLR529 state that causation can only be established if through the application of the “but for” test( generally used to, there are other test for more complex matters) it is proved that the injurywould not have been caused if there was no negligent violation of duty by the defendant. Foreseeability: in Australia the a defendant is generally not liable to damages if it isfound by the court that the damages suffered by the plaintiff was too remote even if there wasnegligence on the part of the plaintiff. The test for determining whether a damage is too remoteor not is known as the Egg shell rule. According to the rule the degree of foresee ability of theharm caused to the plaintiff is restricted to the initial injury caused by the negligence and notbeyond it. In the case of Nader v Urban Transit Authority of NSW(1985) 2 NSWLR 501 it washeld by the court that the rule is still applicable in Australia even after the The Wagon Mound(No 1) case. Contributory negligence in Australia generally comes to the context which it is visiblethat the plaintiff was not able to act as a reasonable person with respect to ensuring own safetyand thus adding up to the harm caused to him (Cane, 2014). Under the old principles of commonlaw the claim of contributory negligence if established could defeat the whole claim of theplaintiff, however statutory principles in Australia have abolished such principles and the newrule provide that the compensation to be paid to the plaintiff is proportionate in accordance to
LW651- The Australian Consumer Law - MacTools Ltd Tort Law_3

End of preview

Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.

Related Documents
LLB 240 - Provisions of Negligence - Tort Law
|7
|1387
|66

Business law in Organisation (Doc)
|8
|1379
|95

Tort Law: Duty of Care and Negligence
|9
|1989
|98

LLB 240 - Tort Law - McTools company Case
|7
|1395
|22

Law of Tort - Understanding Negligence and Liability
|5
|961
|313

Civil Liability of Organizations in Tort Law
|12
|898
|98