In 2019, Lariza was on her way to holiday on the Mornington Peninsula in Victoria. She had booked the holiday with Fun Travel Vic PTY.LTD (FTV). While travelling by bus from Melbourne to the Peninsula, Lariza undid her seat belt to get something from the overhead shelf.
In 2019, Lariza was on her way to holiday on the Mornington Peninsula
Question 1 20 pts
In 2019, Lariza was on her way to holiday on the Mornington Peninsula in Victoria. She had booked the holiday with Fun Travel Vic PTY.LTD (FTV). While travelling by bus from Melbourne to the Peninsula, Lariza undid her seat belt to get something from the overhead shelf. The bus driver approached a bend in the road at fast speed then had to brake suddenly, causing Lariza to fall and break both her arms. Lariza now wishes to sue FTV for $60,000 damages.
A. Advise whether Lariza would be successful in her claim by referring to the Law of Negligence. Use case references to support your answer.
B. Explain the principle of Vicarious Liability and how it is relevant to Lariza’s case.
C. Discuss the two defences FTV may raise to reduce or avoid paying Lariza compensation.
10+5+5 Marks= 20 Marks
Question 2 8 pts
Yihong was out jogging one evening when she noticed a distressed dog roaming the street. There was no sign of the owner and upon looking at the dog’s collar she found a phone number. Yihong phoned the owner Tram, who started crying with joy and said she would come over immediately to collect the dog. After the dog was returned Yihong’s friend informed her that there had been a reward of $1000 for the return of Tram’s dog posted on Facebook.
Yihong contacted Tram again and explained that she would like to claim the reward. Tram repliedthat the reward had been removed from Facebook and was no longer being offered.
Advise Yihong about her rights under contract law and whether she could sue Tram to claim the reward.
Question 3 10 pts
Phuong was in serious financial difficulty. He approached his long-time friend Sylvia and asked to borrow $30,000 at very low interest. He promised to repay it at the end of one year. The year passed, and Sylvia asked him for the money. Phuong was still in financial difficulty. All he had was $20,000. Phuong told Sylvia that he could not repay it all and offered the $20,000. Phuong also knew that Sylvia had admired a painting that he owned.
He asked her if she would take the painting to forgive him the balance of his debt. Sylvia agreed, and Phuong transferred $20,000 to Sylvia’s account and had the painting delivered to her house. Sometime later Sylvia had the painting value d and it was officially estimate d to be worth $125,000. When Phuong heard of this through a mutual friend, he rang Sylvia and told her that he is entitled to have the painting returned because its value far exceeded the original debt owed.
Using relevant cases discuss whether Phuong can force Sylvia to return the painting to him under the law of contract.
Question 4 12 pts
Nga wanted to purchase a computer. The computer was to be used in a business she owns with her partner Regita, “N & R Booking Keeping Services.” She saw a suitable computer advertised in a catalogue for $3000. She found a good deal from DC Wi Fi Pty Ltd. but decided to buy the computer from Dive Cheaters Ltd after seeing an advertisement online. The advertisement stated that with every computer purchased online a year’s worth of free tickets to attend Village Cinema twice a month, would be included. Nga logged onto the Dive Cheaters website and placed her order for the computer and other items. She paid by credit card and opted to pick up the goods herself instore.
The next day Nga picked up her computer and tickets. Nga was so excited about having free tickets to the movies she decided to use her first ticket that same day. However, when Nga attempt ed to use the ticket to gain entry to Village Cinema she is advise d that it has expire d. Shocked, Nga checked the rest of her tickets supplied by Dive Cheaters and is upset to learn that all of them had expired two months ago. Nga contacted Dive Cheaters only to be told there was nothing they could do as the tickets had been supplied as promised and the expiration date was irrelevant
A. Explain whether Dive Cheaters have breached s18 of the Australian Consumer Law.
B. Explain the business structure of Dive Cheaters Ltd and DC Wi Fi Pty Ltd
8+4= 12 Marks