SEMESTER TWO 2018- BULAW5914 assignment
Purpose
This significant task requires forward planning and adequate time for research, reading and reflecting. It comprises 35% of your assessment in this subject.
You should begin researching early to gather information and establish a plan of approach as soon as possible.
The purpose of the assignment is to enable you to achieve outcomes in knowledge, skill and application across the designated learning outcomes mentioned in the BULAW5914 Course Description.
Purposes of the assignment are also to enable you to:
- Learn how to independently research a particular aspect of the law;
- Reflect on and consider particular legal issues;
- Demonstrate your understanding of relevant laws;
- Develop your knowledge about the subject area of your research;
- Demonstrate the ability to investigate, synthesise and analyse;
- Communicate your findings in a formal piece of work and meet a deadline;
- Enhance your written communication skills; and
- Apply your legal skills.
The total length of your assignment must be no more than 2,500 words. Do not include the references or bibliography in your word count.
Assignment Assessment Criteria
You will be assessed on the extent to which you have:
- Answered the set question;
- Been able to identify, set out and discuss relevant legal issues;
- Justified your position by reference to use of appropriate legal sources, particularly cases and legislation where appropriate;
- Analysed, argued or discussed as required by the task questions; and
- Engaged in legal research and made use of relevant secondary legal sources, in particular a number of legal texts, internet sites and academic (peer reviewed) journal articles and books.
Please answer all three questions
- Smallgoods Pty. Ltd. is a manufacturer of processed meat products including salami. During the manufacturing process, the salami is put through a treatment process that kills bacteria which is known in the small goods industry to form in the salami during production. The bacteria is very small and cannot be seen with the human eye. During the manufacture of a particular batch of salami marked “use by 31 July 2018”, Smallgoods Pty Ltd omitted to put the batch through the bacteria treatment process. The salami was then packaged in air-tight plastic packaging which allows the purchaser to see the salami.
This batch of salami was sold to Supermarkets Pty. Ltd. for sale in its supermarket in Melbourne. On 20 July 2018, Ann purchased a package of salami which was marked “use by 31 July 2018” from the supermarket. Above the smallgoods section of the supermarket was a large sign which read “The Liability of Supermarkets Pty. Ltd.” for any loss or damage caused by any product it sells is limited to the cost of replacing the product”.
Ann properly stored the salami in the refrigerator but did not look at the “use by” date. On 7 August 2018, she consumed part of the salami which contained bacteria and she became very ill. She required hospitalisation, incurring large medical expenses and was unable to go to work for two months.
- Compare Ann’s rights against the salami manufacturer under the tort of negligence with her rights under ss54 and 138 of the ACL (10 marks).
- Aside from the rights discussed above, explain whether Ann has any (and if so, what) rights against Supermarkets Pty. Ltd. under the ACL in relation to the contaminated salami (10 marks).
- For some years, Shanti had worked night shift at the U-Bewt Shoes factory, where she was the cutting-machine operator. Her shift started at 3pm and finished at 11pm. She travelled to work by car, and the factory had a car park in which she parked. When she left work at 11pm, the car park was fairly empty, and quite dark. She was the only one leaving at that time, and she had to walk over 100 metres to reach her car. Shanti had, in the past, caught a glimpse of a person in the bushes surrounding the car park, but had never been able to identify the person, since the carpark was unlit.
Shanti had mentioned her concerns about walking in the car park at night to her manager, Mr Collins, and suggested that the factory erect some lights, but he had told her that there was nothing to worry about. The car park was fenced, and there was a security guard at the gateway to the car park. Shanti replied that the security guard was not of much help to her, since he was 500 metres from the actual car park. Shanti also told Mr Collins that everyone knew that some cars had been broken into. Mr Collins said that he had heard about the problem but said that nothing more needed to be done, since the car park was secure.
A week after this conversation, Shanti was walking to her car when she saw a figure at one of the other cars. When she caught a clearer view she saw that it was a man, and that he was clearly breaking into her car. She yelled out, and the man ran towards her and punched her and knocked her to the ground. He then kicked her, and grabbed her handbag before running off.
As a result of the injuries that Shanti suffered during the attack she was unable to work for several months. She blames the factory for the attack, and wants to sue. Advise Shanti about the likely success of her action (15 marks)
