Commercial Law Flow Charts and Notes

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s) : 451
  • Published : April 19, 2013
Open Document
Text Preview
Neighbour Principle: You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour- Who, then, in law, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be - persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions that are called in question

Donoghue v Stevenson

Neighbour Principle: You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour- Who, then, in law, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be - persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions that are called in question

Donoghue v Stevenson

Reasonable Person Test - individual action or failure to act as a reasonably prudent person would under similar circumstances, resulting in harm to another Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856)
Papatonakis v Australian Telecommunications Commission (1985)

Reasonable Person Test - individual action or failure to act as a reasonably prudent person would under similar circumstances, resulting in harm to another Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856)
Papatonakis v Australian Telecommunications Commission (1985)

* Expert or professional
Voli v Inglewood Shire Council (1963)
Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) s 50
* Children
McHale v Watson (1966)
* Disability
Not acceptable in: Adamson v Motor Vehicle Insurance Trust (1957) * Inexperience
Not acceptable in: Imbree v McNeilly (2008)

* Expert or professional
Voli v Inglewood Shire Council (1963)
Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) s 50
* Children
McHale v Watson (1966)
* Disability
Not acceptable in: Adamson v Motor Vehicle Insurance Trust (1957) * Inexperience
Not acceptable in: Imbree v McNeilly (2008)

**Special Cases**
**Special Cases**
2. Breach of Standard of Care
2. Breach of Standard of Care
Other situations (courts consider):
* Policy and fairness
Sullivan and Moody (2001)
* Extent of foreseeability
* Similar cases
* Interfering with other laws
* Conflict with defendants existing statutory duty
* Unreasonable commercial burden on defendant

Other situations (courts consider):
* Policy and fairness
Sullivan and Moody (2001)
* Extent of foreseeability
* Similar cases
* Interfering with other laws
* Conflict with defendants existing statutory duty
* Unreasonable commercial burden on defendant

Specific duty situations:
* Contractual relationships
* Manufacturer/consumer
Donoghue v Stevenson
* Statutory authority/member of the public
Waverley Council v Ferriera (2005)
* Road users/other road users
* Fiduciary (trust) relationships
* Property occupiers/people entering property
Heaven v Pender (1883)

Specific duty situations:
* Contractual relationships
* Manufacturer/consumer
Donoghue v Stevenson
* Statutory authority/member of the public
Waverley Council v Ferriera (2005)
* Road users/other road users
* Fiduciary (trust) relationships
* Property occupiers/people entering property
Heaven v Pender (1883)

iii. The defendant was required to take reasonable action to prevent the foreseeable harm to the plaintiff

iii. The defendant was required to take reasonable action to prevent the foreseeable harm to the plaintiff

ii. It must have been foreseeable that the plaintiff was someone who could have been harmed by the act Palsgraf v Long Island Railway Co (1928)
Chester v Council of Municipality of Waverley (1939)
ii. It must have been foreseeable that the plaintiff was someone who could have been harmed by the act Palsgraf v Long Island Railway Co (1928)
Chester v Council of Municipality of Waverley (1939)
i. It was...
tracking img