Tabl 1710 Tort Cases

Front 1

Donoghue v Stevenson

Back 1

Donoghue's friend ordered and paid for a bottle of ginger beer for Donoghue. Donoghue drank some of the contents and the remains of a decomposed snail fell out. Established test for duty of care and neighbor principle.

Front 2

Northern Sandblasting Pty Ltd v Harris

Back 2

NON-DELEGABLE DUTY OF CARE9 year old electrocuted when turning off outside water tap. Landlord was negligent for renting the premises in dangerous condition

Front 3

Bolton v Stone

Back 3

PROBABILITY OF HARM (a)Stone was hit with a ball from cricket pitch, but balls have rarely flown over fence before. When a risk is sufficiently small, it is highly improbable that a reasonable person would anticipate the harm

Front 4

Paris v Stepney Borough Council

Back 4

SERIOUSNESS OF HARM (b)Person who was blind in one eye injured his other eye from defendant's failure to supply protective goggles

Front 5

Cole v South Tweed Heads Rugby Club Ltd

Back 5

BURDEN OF TAKING PRECAUTIONS (c) Drunk lady at the football club leaves club and walks in front of a car. Says they should've monitored her intake but too high a burden of taking precautions..

Front 6

Agar v Hyde

Back 6

SOCIAL UTILITY OF ACTIVITY Injured rugby players sued board, saying if they had changed rules they wouldn't be injured. Social utility of the defendant reduces the responsibility.

Front 7

1. Lindeman Ltd v Colvin

2. Cork v Kirby Maclean Ltd

Back 7

CAUSATION;

1. injuries were independant of incident, not the fault of employer

2. Employee didn't disclose medical history and employer breached safety regulations so equal fault

Front 8

Wagon Mound 1

Wagon Mound 2

Back 8

REMOTENESS:

1. P failed in his case because it would not be fair to hold D liable for all the consequences of their negligence

2. D liable because the damage was foreseeable.

Front 9

1. Imbree v McNeilly

2. Liftronic v Unver

Back 9

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE

1. D's liability was reduced by 30% as P was supervising passenger

2. P didn't follow instruction so liability for D was reduced by 60%

Front 10

1. Caltex oil v The Dredge "Willemstad

2. Hawkins v Clayton

Back 10

ECONOMIC LOSS

1. P sued for damage to pipelines as it increased costs

2. Liability for negligently not notifying executor of the will.

Front 11

1. UltramaresCorportion v Touche

2. Candler v Crane, Christmas & Co

Back 11

NEGLIGENT MISSTATEMENT

1. Unqualified audit

2. Candler relied on the accountants judgement; case failed because there was no contractual or fiduciary relationships.

Front 12

Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller and Partners Ltd

Back 12

NEGLIGENT MISSTATEMENT P asked bank for credit check for advertising company there were about to employ. Bank said they were in good position, so P placed large orders. Then Easipower went into liquidation. Established principle that Duty of care exists where there is reliance on advice given.

Front 13

Essanda Finance v Peat Marwick Hungerfords

Back 13

DUTY TO THIRD PARTIES Foreseeability of possibility that advice might be communicated to 3rd party, and that they could then suffer loss is not sufficient to establish duty of care between auditor and third parties.

Front 14

Commercial Bank v Amadio

Back 14

UNCONSCIONABLE CONDUCT: Oldcouple put their house up to pay for sons business.Bank took advantage of P's lack of English. They knew the extent of the sons debt but the P had no idea.

Front 15

Weitmann v Katies

Back 15

MISLEADING OR DECEPTIVE CONDUCT; Mislead issomethingthat will lead a customer astray in action or conduct. Deceptive is somethingthat leads a consumer into making an error

Front 16

Taco Company of Australia Inc v Taco Bell Pty Ltd

Back 16

MISLEADING OR DECEPTIVE CONDUCT: The Bondi Restaurant won name rights on basis that it was first.

Front 17

PoseidonLtd v Adelaide Petroleum NL

Back 17

MISLEADING OR DECEPTIVE CONDUCT: Did not disclose facts to P

Front 18

McWilliam's Wines Pty Ltd v McDonald's System of Australia Pty Ltd

Back 18

MISLEADING OR DECEPTIVE CONDUCT:McWilliam's had wine bottle called Big Mac. P lost case because conduct might cause confusion but it wasn't misleading.

Front 19

1. ACCC v Leahy Petroleum Pty Ltd

2. Norcast v Bradken Limited

Back 19

CARTEL:

1. Price fixing

2. Bid Rigging

Difficult to prove a breach

Front 20

1. News Limited & Ors v Australian Rugby Football League Limited

2. News Ltd v South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Ltd

Back 20

EXCLUSIONARY PROVISIONS:

1. ARL got players to sign contract to stay with them for next 5 years but this was breach of s4D (2)

2. Agreement between competitors which may have unintended effect of restricting club is not illegal exclusionary provision

Front 21

1. ACCC v Leahy Petroleum

2. ACCC v Visy Industries Holdings Limited

Back 21

SUBSTANTIAL LESSENING OF COMPETITION:

2. Engaged in price fixing and market sharing. AMCOR was given immunity for being a whistleblower.

Front 22

Universal Music v ACCC

Back 22

EXCLUSIVE DEALING: D refused to supply retailers who imported CD's direct; used as a illegal tactic to warn all retailers not to acquire D's titles anywhere else.

Front 23

Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v Williams and Hodgson Transport Pty Ltd

Back 23

NO THIRD LINE FORCING: P's claim, that D was forcing C's service onto retailers, lost as there was nothing in the contract between D and C.

Front 24

1. ACCC v Sundaze Australia Pty Ltd

2. ACCC v Jurlique International Pty Ltd

Back 24

RESALE PRICE MAINTENANCE:

1. Found guilty of trying to induce retailers to maintain it's Recommended Retail Price

2. D refused to supply Jurlique products unless they agreed to not sell them below specified price

Front 25

1. ACCC v Pioneer International Ltd and Pioneer Building Products

2. ACCC v Metcash Trading Ltd

Back 25

MERGERS

1. D acquired competitor without permission of ACCC, meant they supplied almost the whole market which reduced competition substantially

2. No substantially lessening of competition