Australian Legal Case: The Mabo Case The Mabo case commenced in the late 70's about an Aborigine Eddie Mabo who fought for his land on Murray Island, part of the Torres Strait. The issue that started the court case was when Mr Mabo appealed for a permit from the Queensland Government to visit the island. His proposal was declineed so he was unable to return home to visit his homeland.
v. Agyemang, supra, R. v. Chan,  O .J. No. 3329, and R. v. Irvine,  O. J. No. 5375; aff’d  O.J. No. 914. (The court finds in light of the greater part of the incidental confirmation in this trial, both for the deductions tried to be depended upon by the Crown, and in light of the majority of the proof in this trial including those put together by the safeguard, that Mr. Singh had been the driver of the Acura auto in the time allotment in the blink of an eye before 9:55 pm. at the point when the Toronto police dispatched the principal cop to the scene. Unquestionably, the court finds past a sensible uncertainty that this Acura auto had been driven around there after 8:35 pm. and preceding 9:55 pm. At the point when this auto was watched stranded on the streetcar tracks in the
On the 6th of June 1992 The high court of Australia made the decision to overturn the doctrine of Terra Nullius, Mabo v Queensland (No2) (1992) 175 CRL 1, this decision caused a very significant impact on Australia’s Law and legal History. It was the first time since British settlement in 1770 that native title was recognised in Australia for Indigenous Australians. Native title refers to land title rights indigenous Australians have with land that has cultural significance to them. The decision ruled in favour of the common law doctrine of Aboriginal title.
The claimant was working and accidently slip on the factory floor due to previous flood. The defendant had put up warning signs, mopped and placed sawdust at specific areas to minimize the risk. It is held that there is no need for eliminating risk at higher expenses hence no obligation for closure of factory. Lastly, in case Watt v Hertfordshire  1 WLR 835 shows the weight of utility of defendant’s conduct. Claimant as a fireman were on mission to save a woman trapped underneath a lorry in a traffic accident.
In conclusion, when loss occurs, the exclusion clauses become important to rely on for both parties. This could cost supplier if these clauses are challenged. However, the court’s decision could go either way, it is clear that certainly in consumer to business contracts, suppliers can limit their liability through carefully clear written exclusion clauses .However, claimants has potential to seek claim under the two Acts if required tests has been passed making case
In common law tort cases, courts must decide the outcome based first on what is the most fair for both parties and then on precedent, but if a higher court finds that a lower court was in error they may overturn that precedent. This was the case in Sherwood v. Walker. We will review the initial facts of the case, including: the initial negotiation and agreement, the denial of the sale, the first trial and the Michigan Supreme court reversal. We will look at the legal issues involved and approach of the courts and how that approach was applied. Finally, we will look at how the court’s conclusion might be applied in a case today by analyzing a detailed fictitious case, the arguments of both parties and the court’s decision.
An evaluation will be made of Clause 35 of Afrosa’s contract with Foghorn cars. An explanation will be made of the legal rules which relate to implied terms and exclusion clauses with reference to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA 1977). Terms may be implied into a contract in three principle ways. Terms may be implied by statute, there are two main reasons for this interference.
In advising Miranda on her respective claims to the items she found in March 2015, the key authority is Qantas Airways Ltd v Smith, citing Alambie v Davis, Bertram v Heffernan and Stephen Pty Ltd v Swift. DOES MIRANDA FULFIL THE ROLE OF THE FINDER? Miranda’s claim is based on the common law principle that ‘the act of finding a chattel which has been lost and taking control of it gives the finder rights with respect of that chattel’, demonstrated in Alambie v Davis. In Qantas v Smith, where the High Court clarified that, (1) the item must be ‘abandoned or lost’, (2) the finder must ‘[take] it into [their] care and control’, and (3) that a finder’s rights are limited if they find the chattel with ‘dishonest intent or in the course of
Causation: • To be recoverable from the defendant the losses must actually be caused by the negligent. • Was the harm or a trouble achieved as an outcome of breach of duty of care? • see Cork v Kirby Maclean  2 All ER 402 (CA) 4. Remoteness: • The losses suffered must be caused by the negligent act and not to be remote • The damage must not be a direct consequence of the negligent act, but must have also been reasonably foreseeable: see Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co Pty Ltd  2 All ER 709 and Metrolink Victoria Pty Ltd v Inglis  VSCA 227 (VCA) 5. Damages: • Plaintiff needs to prove that injury or damage she/he is suffering is result of defendant’s negligence.
Consideration is often defined as “a detriment voluntarily incurred by the promisee… or a benefit conferred on the promisor in exchange for the promise.”1 Whilst the doctrine of consideration does, in some cases, cause parties to experience injustice, sometimes something that the courts fail to resolve, consideration is a crucial element to the formation of a legally binding contract. This paper will not only explain why the High Court should not abolish the requirement for consideration but will also highlight its usefulness in contract formation.
...g, stood by itself and that it could be actionable in any circumstances in which one person suffered personal injury or physical property damage as a direct, close and foreseeable result of the act or omission of another. Litigants do not have to rely on special relationships to prove their cases nor is negligence a dependent component of other torts.