Reference no: EM132369699 , Length: word count:1000

Commercial Law

Assessment Description

• There will be a webinar to assist you with preparing this assignment. Watch out for the webinar time and date details to be posted in the Subject Announcements.

• This assignment covers the Law of Torts (Week 5).

• You will need to identify the issues in the question, cite the relevant rules applicable to the issues, explain the application of the rules to the facts/situation in the problem and draw a conclusion as to the best advice for the person/s you are providing advice (IRAC).

Assessment Problem Based Question

Peter is a real estate developer. He develops residential apartment complexes in the Wollongong local area. He purchases a large block of land for $2 million and plans to build a large apartment complex on the block at a considerable profit. But Wollongong Council denies his development application on the basis of a road widening proposal that will substantially reduce the size of the block. This road widening proposal reduces the value of the block of Peter's land to $1 million.

Peter reads the council certificate he obtained from Wollongong Council. If the block of land had been subject to a road widening proposal then it should have been disclosed by Wollongong Council in the certificate. There is no such disclosure in the certificate. As Peter didn't bother to read the certificate before he purchased the land, he is relieved to find the council has made this mistake. He secretly knows that if Wollongong Council had been careful and included the road widening disclosure in the certificate, he would not have seen it and gone ahead with the land purchase anyway.

Peter now wants to sue Wollongong Council in negligence for economic loss. Wollongong Council claims that negligence only applies to physical actions, not written words, and is only applicable to physical damage to people or their property, not economic loss.

Advise Peter.

TO PROVE THE ACTUAL ISSUE, THERE ARE 5 STEPS:

1. Answer the actual question (ISSUE 1): is it possible to sue for negligence for pure economic loss rather than physical harm
(provide the 3 cases that give you the answer to this question AND WRITE THE ANSWER IN A SENTENCE)

2. Identify what the OTHER issue (ISSUE 2) in the case is (negligent misrepresentation - provide the correct case - see the notes I emailed you re neg. misrep.) AND WRITE THE ANSWER IN A SENTENCE

NOW PROVE FOR THIS CASE:

3. Determine whether the facts of THIS case give rise to pure economic loss (see the book chapter I emailed to you) + proceed with IRAC

a. Duty of Care (normal, eg. Donoghue v Stevenson) THEN add variation (see pp.60 + 61 of my emailed notes for pure economic loss - the case that sets out the Doc for pure ec loss is Perre v Apand)
I= DoC (does Wollongong Council owe Peter a duty of care for pure economic loss?)
R= the law (Don v Stev and for pure economic, there is another layer of steps required to satisfy the DoC element)
A= arguing the law using these facts (put the facts to the law)
C= what will be the outcome for the client? (Peter)

b. Breach of duty/standard of care (Civil Liability Act 2002)
I= Breach of Standard of Care
R= the law
A= arguing the law using these facts
C= what will be the outcome for the client? (Peter)

c. Causation & Remoteness
I= Causation + Remoteness
R= the law
A= arguing the law using these facts
C= what will be the outcome for the client? (Peter)

d. Defence 1. Voultary Assumption of Risk (VAR)
I= VAR
R= the law
A= arguing the law using these facts
C= what will be the outcome for the client? (Peter)

e. Defence 2. Contributory negligence (CN)
I= CN
R= the law
A= arguing the law using these facts
C= what will be the outcome for the client? (Peter)

(Do an individual IRAC for each of the above elements)

4. Determine whether the facts of THIS case give rise to negligent misrepresentation/misstatement (they are both the same for the purpose of the law)

a. Duty of Care (normal, eg. Donoghue v Stevenson + recognised categories of duty) THEN add variation (see p. 112 - para 3.13 - of the notes I emailed you on Negligent Misrepresentation - does Wollongong council owe Peter a DoC for neg. misrep.? ALSO SEE p.53 of ADAM'S NOTES FROM YOUR WEEK 5 ADDITIONAL READINGS)
b. Breach of duty/standard of care (Civil Liability Act 2002)(special skill or special knowledge?)
c. Causation & Remoteness (what is the standard of care owed? did the harm arise from a breach of the standard of care?)
d. Defence 1. Voultary Assumption of Risk (VAR)
e. Defence 2. Contributory negligence

(Do an individual IRAC for each of the above elements - see above)

5. Give the final answer to all of the above as an overall conclusion