a) the duty of care is the principle under which adherence is provided to the standardized care when

the actions performed foreseeably harm others. It is essential that actions must be done for the best
interest of the individuals. In the provided case, though Jane and his copartner steals the fuel from
Jake's property but still Jake owes duty if care to Jane because he got hurt severely because of Jake's
action. Hurting someone physically is considered unacceptable in law. Moreover, Jane does not
know the intended theft, which states that he may not be aware about of theft. In that scenario
without knowing the truth, hurting someone can be considered as unlawful act. Also, it is the duty of
law to make decision and perform action. Therefore, Jake owes duty of care towards Jane because
he intentionally throws a large rock on the window of thieves' car that hit Jane severely. Though Jake
himself was suffering from negligence of duty of care because of theft at his property but he could
have called police rather than hurting someone.

b) since Jake owes duty of care towards Jane, he has breached his duty as hitting someone
intentionally is against law. Also, it cannot be considered as the scenario of self defense as the Jane
and driver had not perform any action that can harm Jake physically. But their action of theft is
completely against law. Jake had carelessly breached his duty as hitting someone with stone
intentionally and causing severe results is considered against law. Including this, breaking someone's
property can also be considered as breach of duty ignoring the fact Jane and driver broke into Jake's
property. It was the prime duty of Jake to involve the police before taking any action if he had
observed any theft. Handling the case himself without any legal consideration can also be considered
as the breach of duty due to negligence. Therefore, Jake has breached the duty of care against Jane
since his actions hurt Jane severely who was not unknown to the intentions of driver. Without
understanding the situation Jake hurts Jane intentionally which is against duty of care principle.

c) there exist two defenses to reduce the claim of Jane that are comparative fault, and assumption of
risk. Under the comparative fault defense, Jake's action is negotiable as he is suffering from theft on
his property since last two weeks. When he checked into the mater himself to stop the thieves, he
threw the rock. He was facing loss and to stop that he undertook this action and without knowing
that someone is hitting at passenger seat as Jane was lying down to hide himself. So, there is
scenario that Jake was unable to see Jane and did not hot him intentionally. The other defense is
assumption of risk, under which Jake can illustrate the plaintiff voluntarily. The damage that was
brought to Jake's property can also not be ignored and in order to stop more damage he undertook
the stated action. In such case, the law can help Jake to defend his actions his own property is being
hurt by Jane's actions. The actions like theft are also against the law.

d) to assist the argument provided the case scenario of White v John Warwick & Co Ltd [1953] 1 WLR
1285: UK Court of Appeal can be considered as in this case also the John Warwich has underwent
the duty of care in negligence as his actions were unlawful and have damaged the other party, but at
the same time the actions undertaken by White were also not considered lawful as they
considerably damage the property of the owner and in this scenario the exemption of defenses
clause can be applied. In the case of Jake also this clause is considered as valuable as it became
easier to describe the actions that are undertaken by both parties. Under White v John Warwick &
Co Ltd [1953] 1 WLR 1285: UK Court of Appeal case scenario also assumption of risk exemption
scenario can be seen under the action.

c) Yes, there exist some cases of the similar situation as De Lassalle v Guildford [1901] 2 KB 215 and
JJ Savage and Sons Pty Ltd v Blakney [1970] HCA 6 as under the first defendant was in breach of an
oral ‘collateral’ contract in respect of the condition of the drains. This meets the conditions of the
provided case study where oral contract caused the issues and it was breached by one party. In JJ
Savage and Sons Pty Ltd v Blakney [1970] HCA 6 as the portrayal in the letter was neither a term of
the principal contract nor a guarantee. Albeit the assertion regarding the speed of the boat
prompted Blakney going into the agreement, it was not promissory. This also meets the
specifications of given case study.

a) to have a claim against the Quality Timber Pty Ltd under the Australia law it is mandatory that Jack
must have strong proof to claim that company has not provided the similar product that it intends to
provide. It is important that Jack must get it checked from the experts and if they ensure that wood
in table does not meet the specification then only the claim by him is considerable. This give rise to
contract of sale in which the requirements of the consumers are not met. As in case scenario of
Head v Tattersall [1871] LR 7 Exch 7 , Head was entitled to the return of the purchase price as valid
contract of sale had arisen as horse that Head was ready to buy does not meet the specified
conditions. In such scenario under Australian consumer law the consumers can get full financial
return back.

b) Yes, there are provisions of the Australian Consumer Law that Jack could rely on to get a
replacement table as there exist a major problem it is ensured under law that Jack must be provided
with new table that meet his specification. In the given scenario as per law, he can get the complete
replacement or the complete money back. It is considered as a major problem because the table is
significantly different from the sample or description. There are many similar cases, one is already
explained before of Head v Tattersall [1871] LR 7 Exch 7 in which horse specification were not same
as demanded. The other case is The Moorcock (1889) 14 PD 64, on the arrival of the ship it was
found damaged and was not able to meet the specifications that were stated in the contract when
the deal was finalized.

c) Yes, Jack can rely on the Australian Consumer Law even after the 2011 amendments to the
electronic transactions Act as under this act whenever buyer orders anything and click on Buy, I
Agree or I Accept button he sends the acknowledgement to the sender and a binding agreement is
accepted by both the parties. As per in the case of Jack when he places the order in Sydney there are
chances that small obligations can be made to the law as the federal law of New Zealand (where Jack
was living) has some small changes than that of Sydney. And though the house in Sydney but the
federal law as per New Zealand need to be considered when making amendments and claim the
changes. Therefore.it can be ensured that changes on the online transactions will work according to
the law amendments as per the federal government.

d) The contract deemed to have been formed in New Zealand as this is the place where orders were
being placed. Though the house is in Sydney the obligations and laws were considered as per the
federal government of New Zealand. Although the company has its office in Australia as well but the
exact location is not mentioned. Moreover, as per the act of the Australian Consumer Law section
14B Place of dispatch and place of receipt the electronic communication is taken to have been
dispatched at the place where the company providing furniture has its place of business; or in other
case the electronic communication is taken to have been received at the place where the addressee
has its place of business. In both the conditions New Zealand is considered the place where contract
can be deemed. The originator is Jack and the addressee is the company that has sold the table
regardless the location where the table is exactly placed.