Homework Question - Legal Subject

Discussion in 'Australian Law Students Forum' started by Christina Di maria, 4 May 2015.

  1. Christina Di maria

    4 May 2015
    Likes Received:
    If I display prescription drugs with the price stated on each cardboard pack of drugs, I am making an offer to any customer who walks in. FALSE
    There is no limit to the number of people that I can make an offer to. TRUE
    There is no requirement for an intention to create legal relations in order for there to be a valid contract. (TRUE or FALSE)
    In promissory estoppel there is no requirement for the promisor to unfairly break a promise. ( TRUE or FALSE)
    For equitable estoppel to apply parties need not be in a contractual relationship. (TRUE or FALSE)
    The common law has provided solutions to all situations. (TRUE or FALSE)
    In the case of Donoghue v Stevenson the court held that the manufacturers of the ginger beer owed no duty of care to the plaintiff as no contract existed between the manufacturers and the plaintiff. TRUE
    Historically, speaking legislation existed in Australia long before common law. The position is the reverse as far as the UK is concerned. (TRUE or FALSE)
    The Australia Act 1986 (Cth) was passed in order for the States and Territories to maintain effective control of the Commonwealth.(TRUE or FALSE)
    The Executive arm of the government in Australia is entrusted with the task of administering the laws of Australia TRUE
  2. Sophea

    Sophea Guest

    Correct - your support for this would be the case of Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Court of Appeal [1953] 1 QB 401. You can read about it here: Australian Contract Law | Julie Clarke

    Correct - its possible to make an offer to the world at large.

    - FALSE this is a requirement for contract formation, for a contract to exist the parties must intend to create legal relations.

    - FALSE, for action for promissory estoppel to succeed, it must be shown that, in the circumstances, it would be unfair or inequitable to allow the party to break his or her promise.

    - TRUE - this is a doctrine that recognises reliance on promises which may not yet be formalised in a contract.

    - FALSE - this is why we have legislation

    - FALSE - they found that a duty of care existed despite there being no contract between the parties, based on the neighbour principal - a "neighbour was anyone who is so closely and directly affected by my act, or failure to act, that I ought reasonably to have them in my contemplation" - Lord Aitkin

    - don't know.

    - The Australia Act did away with the possibility of the United Kingdom being able to legislate for Australia, for the it to be involved in Australian government. Don't know whether its more accurate to say that it was passed for Australia to maintain effective control over itself. Not sure whether true or false.


Share This Page