Legal Analysis: Motor Car Act & Affidavit Drafting in Victoria

This assignment showcases a student's work on legal writing, specifically addressing the Victorian Motor Car Act 1915 and the drafting of an affidavit. The solution includes an analysis of the Act, focusing on minimizing ambiguity within its clauses, referencing the cases of Chammen v. Gilmore and Kane v. Dureau. The assignment also involves drafting an effective affidavit based on provided information related to a civil litigation case, demonstrating an understanding of legal principles and the structure of legal documents. The student provides a rewritten version of the Act to reduce ambiguity and drafts an affidavit for the Supreme Court of Victoria, highlighting their ability to apply legal concepts to practical scenarios.

Running head: WORK AND ACTIVITIES
WORK AND ACTIVITIES
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1
WORK AND ACTIVITIES
Activity 3.1:
Hi Iris
Here is the best link I can find to a video of how to track change [https://youtu.be/m-
K0FlZPwCM]
Please see the following track changed letter:
Dear Miss Twinkle
The intimidation order of suing you in a flawed civil claim made by your husband
against you.
Thank you for taking out some time out of your busy schedule and talking to me over the
phone on Sunday regarding the problems that you are currently facing in your life.
The objective of this letter is to hereafter notify you regarding the succeeding matter
concerning the source of your daily living. The topic regarding which issue has been arisen
includes apparent circumstances that might get reflected as an outcome of ongoing, repeated
interceding orders in spite of the successful establishment of the fact that your conduct was
far beyond from the context of being criticised.
As per our discussion over the phone, Sandra McKay has been appointed as your solicitor for
the mentioned matter and she is very much excited to have a chat with you regarding the
important facts of the case. She further wants to clarify a few facts from your side.
Needless to say that this whole matter must be upsetting you immensely every day, especially
the presence of the fact of threats regarding the intervention order and suing under civil

2
WORK AND ACTIVITIES
liability must be intolerable, which can be inferred from the series of event that is taking
place in your residence in every passing day regarding the issue.
Please contact me in my office over the phone to have further discussion about this at your
convenient time within Friday (Date) 4pm.
Yours faithfully
Iris Mauthoor
Activity 9:
I, Janine Brooks, Director of the Holy Bike Suppliers(HBS) , working at 67 Fawkner
Street, Coburg, do solemnly and sincerely affirm as follows: That I am the Defendant No. 2
this matter and I make this affidavit from my own knowledge unless otherwise stated. My
company under my supervision entered into a contract in the month of January over phone
with Daryl’s Bikes for the delivery of 25 bikes per month at the rate of $500. I myself
appointed our regular delivery contractor, Guy Stoner (Defendant No.3) of ‘Bikes On Time’,
on 27TH of January, to deliver the bikes. The whole consignment contained 30 more number
of bikes including the contracted one. I myself checked the consignment before loading it to
Guy Stoner’s Toyota Hiace on 2nd of February, 8:45 am for the delivery. Daryl’s Bikes, after
receiving the consignment with extra 30 bikes denying its payment saying that they did not
get extra bikes. The company was our regular customer and I have a strong believe that there
is no mistake on our part to deliver the extra 30 bikes. Guy Stoner also said that he delivered
the bike on 10:30 am on 2nd February and Justin Barber as the representative of Daryl

3
WORK AND ACTIVITIES
signed the delivery docket. Daryl further accusing me for not delivering 50 bikes in the
month of November and December, which is completely a false allegation. My calculation is
saying Daryl owe HBS $15000.
AFFIRMED at in the State of …
this # day of Month 20XY
BEFORE ME:
Lawyer’s signature
Activity 9.1
Section 10(1) of Motor Car Act 1915, states that Any person who drives a motor car on a
public highway
 Recklessly,
 negligently or at a high speed or in a manner which is detrimental to the public,
then, the person is liable to be held guilty under this Act, after considering all the
circumstances of the case including the nature condition and use of the highway and to the
amount of traffic which actually is at the time or which might reasonably be expected to be
on the highway. However, the court while interpreting this sub-section must take into
consideration factors of the case in issue, its nature and use of the same in highway, and also
the amount of traffic to determine the reasonability of the speed. While interpreting this sub-

4
WORK AND ACTIVITIES
section in cases involving a motor accident, it can be seen that the court took a practical and
reasonable approach on various occasions. In the case of Chammen v. Gilmore, the court held
that the term ‘any circumstances and conditions’ in this case includes recklessly and
negligently driving, as well as speed and dangerous driving manner. The court further held
that the onus is on the driver to drive responsibly and the focus of the legislators should be on
implementing a new provision for reckless or negligent driving rather than limiting the speed
under this sub-section. However, the words of the judgment, in this case, did not clearly
define the purpose of this sub-section. In the case of Kane v. Dureau, the court of law made
three explanations while interpreting the sub-section through the practical approach view. It
was held that there can be several offences related to this act; driving recklessly, driving
negligently, driving at a speed which is risky to the public or driving in a manner that is
unsafe for the public. The court further held that the ambiguous words of this sub-section are
unable to define situations and their remedies where the several offences envisaged under this
sub-section gets overlapped with each other. The court in this case, without giving any
extensive definition of the word "recklessly" included an element that distinguished it from
the other specific offences.
To further remove the ambiguity existed with this sub-section, one must interpret it in
a way, so that the purpose of specially categorizing this sub-section that is to recognize
‘reckless’ and ‘negligence’ driving cases, can be asserted. The best approach for reading the
sub-section would have been that while determining any cases under this sub-section keeping
in mind those different consequences as mentioned under the same does not constitute an
essential element to this sub-section. The same rule will be applicable considering cases of
negligent driving or driving at a speed risky to the life of the public. The idea behind this
thinking is that there exist various occasions where the driver believed that his driving was
careful enough but he held guilty of rash and negligent driving. It is for the court to decide by

5
WORK AND ACTIVITIES
taking into consideration different surrounding circumstances of different cases. However,
the court, while deciding or interpreting case, must take an unbiased opinion by considering
only the fact in issue of a case, that is whether the driving was reckless enough to harm the
public safety and should not consider any other impersonal factors and does not require any
given state of mind as an essential element of the offence. However, this sub-section does not
include defenses that are available like involuntariness or influence of third party factors
while driving, which can be used as a ground of defense in motor act cases.
Activity 10:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE
[DIVISION]
[LIST] No. [proceeding no.]
B E T W E E N
DARYL’S BIKES
Plaintiff
-and-
HOLY BIKE SUPPLIERS
Defendant No.1
JANINE BROOK
Defendant No.2
GUY STONER
Defendant No.3
AFFIDAVIT

6
WORK AND ACTIVITIES
_________________________________________________________________________
Date of Document: Solicitors Code:
Filed on behalf of: Janine Brook DX:
Prepared by: (Name of the student) Telephone:
Ref:
Email:
_________________________________________________________________________
I, Janine Brook (Defendant No. 3) the Director of Holy Bike Suppliers, make oath and say or
affirm:
1. My company, Holy Bike Suppliers (Defendant No. 1), entered into an agreement with
Daryl's Bikes (Plaintiff) for the supply of 'Hey Chargers' bikes at $500 each.
2. I made a call on 27th January 2019 at 10:30 PM to Guy Stoner (Defendant No. 3), who
is a regular delivery contractor of Holy Bike Suppliers, and appointed him for the
supply of 'Hey Chargers' bikes to the Plaintiff.
3. I met Defendant No. 3 at the Holy Bike Suppliers war house on 2nd February 2019 in
the morning and handed him over the contracted number of bikes and extra 30 bikes
for supply to the Plaintiff.
4. Defendant No. 3 put all the bikes in his Toyota Hiace and left for the delivery.
5. Defendant No. 3 delivered all the bikes to the Plaintiff on 2nd February, 10:30 am.
6. Defendant No. 3 unloaded the extra 30 bikes to the back office of the Plaintiff.
7. Defendant No. 3 said in a conference dated 31st March 2019 held at 2 Everlasting
Street, Bunbury, that Justin Bieber on behalf of the Plaintiff, acknowledged the
delivery and signed receipt of the same.
8. The Plaintiff, after receiving the bikes failed to make payment and denied the delivery
of additional 30 bikes.
9. Defendant No. 3 confessed about all the incidents in the conference held at 2
Everlasting Street, Bunbury on 31st of March 2019, and accepted about the delivery of
extra 30 bikes to the Plaintiff.
10. My company fulfilled all the requirements made by the contract with the Plaintiff
regarding the supply of bikes and Defendant No.3 also fulfilled his duty rationally.
11. The Plaintiff and his representative on that day are improperly denying about the
delivery of extra 30 bikes.
The contents of this affidavit are true and correct and I make it knowing that a person
making a false affidavit may be prosecuted for the offenses of perjury.

7
WORK AND ACTIVITIES
Sworn or Affirmed at [place]
in the State of Victoria on [date] Janine Brook
[Signature of deponent swearing or affirming the affidavit contents, to be signed in front of
the authorized affidavit taker]
Before me,
[Name of the student]
[signature of authorized affidavit taker]
on [date]
[name, statement of the capacity in which the authorized affidavit taker has the authority to
take the affidavit, and personal or professional address in legible writing, typing or stamp]
A person authorized under section 19(1) of the Oaths and Affirmations Act 2018 to take an
affidavit.