Course code: LAW2447

Team number: 50
Tutorial class/group: Task 2 Team 50
Lecturer’s name: Nguyen Anh Thu
Team members’ name & id: Nguyen Le Duc Huy-s3978053
Nguyen Nhat Minh-s3977802

Scenario 1:
Issue 1: Ms Al-Jamil and Mr Mendoza
This case involves Ms Tahani Al-Jamil, occupier of the premises at
the time when the premises burn down, Ms Eleanor Shelltrop, owner of the circus
decor shop next door and the owner of the house Mr Jason Mendoza. Both Ms
Tahani Al-Jamil and Ms Eleanor Shelltrop suffered from the fire which cause by
Ms Al-Jamil. But the fault of this disaster starts from Mr Mendoza when he and
Ms Al-Jamil is negotiating to lease the premises to Ms Al-Jamil. On the
morning of 11 August 2019, the building and scaffolding inspector Mr Michael
has come to the premises and conclude that the fireplace or chimney should not
be used under any circumstances uless it has been repaired according to the
construct of Mr Michael.Mr Mendoza received the letter, but Mr Mendoza does not
inform Ms Al-Jamil the letter of the City Council. According to all the information of the
scenario, the plaintiff in this is Ms Al-Jamil and the defendant is Mr Mendazo. Mr Mendazo
has violated the Safe Building Act 1958 when Mr Mendazo ignore the warning of the City
Council. The rule of the law is that it is violation of the SBA for a person who is the owner of
the premises to lease the premises to another person without knowledge the danger of the
fireplace or the chimney if it is in used.
As the first part of the Safe Building Act of 1958, the person to whom it is delivered is
required to comply with it. If neither the owner nor the occupant obeys the notification
mandating fire protection work, the Act states that "the Council of any city may carry out or
cause to be carried out any works or take any other measures for the prevention of fires."
That is, both Mr Mendoza and Ms Al-Jamil are liable for repairing or removing the fireplace
or chimney. However, because Ms Al-Jamil does not get or receives any notice about the
chimney from Mr Mendoza when negotiating the premises, Ms Al-Jamil is culpable in this
case.
Denfese:

Issue 2: Ms Al-Jamil and Ms Shelltrop

The legal issue is Ms Al-Jamil does not know the chimney of the fireplace was
defective when she occupire the premises

Ms Al-Jamil is the defendant in this case, while Ms Shelltrop is the plaintiff. The fire that
destroyed the buildings and damaged Shelltrop's business originated in a fireplace where
Ms Al-Jamil had kindled a wood fire before going to bed. The fireplace features a glass
screen to prevent sparks from escaping. However, the fireplace's chimney was faulty. The
fire was extinguished due to flaws discovered in the chimney in August 2019. When the
inspector was dispatched, the City Council discovered that the chimney was missing some
mortar from the bricks at the rear and bottom of the fireplace. On 11 August 2019, Mr
Michael, builiding and scaffolding inspector, has detect and give the owner of the premises
when Mr Al-Jamil hasn’t occupied. After received the advice of Mr Michael, Mr Mendoza
decide not to let Ms Al-Jamil know of either of the letter or the warning of not to use the
fireplace. Consequently, when Ms Al-Jamil lit the fire on 22 May, she had no knowledge of
the defects in the fireplace. She would not have used it had she known it was defective. The
fire has casue Ms Shelltrop calculated financial and physical lost she suffered as a
consequence to her whimsical shop as $80,000.
Defense:
Issue 3: Mr Mendoza vs The City Council
The legal issue here is after receiving the warning from the inspector, Mr Mendoza
does not do anything to comply with the instruction in the letter.
When the Greater Dandenong Fire Department was summoned on the premises on
9 August 2019, the police officer who saw some mortar was missing from the bricks in the
back and bottom of the fireplace. The department notified the City Council of Greater
Dandeong. The City Council after sent the building and scaffolding inspector, Mr Michael,
has come and give advice to the owner Mr Mendoza. Even after received the letter of
advice, but Mr Mendoza does not inform the occupier, therefore to cause the fire to burnt
down both the premises and the house next door. According to the Safe Building Act (as
stated in issue 1), the City Council is responsible for carrying out or causing to be carried out
any works or taking any other measures for fire prevention. However, the Council did not
inquire if Mr Mendoza had received Mr Michael's letter of termination. The Council did not
issue a follow-up notice mandating completion of the repair. There was no additional
examination of the property. The Council did not carry out or allow any work on the premises
for the purpose of fire prevention. The Council is accountable for failing to bring the problem
detected by Mr Michael to Ms Al-Jamil's notice after she began to occupy the premises.

Defense:

Scenario 2:
Issue 1: Simon v Nicole
Legal issue
In this case, the subordinate legal issue is whether Simon (defendant) owed Nicole (plaintiff)
a “duty of care” and committed the “tort of negligence”. Additionally, Nicole also caused
severe injuries to Simon.
Legal rules - Application
The legal rule used in the first issue is Tort of Negligence. A person violates the tort of
negligence when they act carelessly and damage another person (James, 2017). The
plaintiff must gather three elements in order to establish whether the defendant owed the
plaintiff a "duty of care," if the respondent violated the "duty of care," and whether the
claimant experienced injury/damage/harm that was reasonably foreseeable.
Firstly, Simon had been drinking and unable to take control of his actions. Therefore, as
Simon ran into the road to persuade the taxi driver to drive him and his group home, he
stepped into Nicole’s lane and got hit.

Secondly, Nicole was driving in the opposite direction. As the taxi’s lightbeams were still on,
Simon was not visible to Nicole. Nicole continued to pass the taxi and stopped the car after
she saw a dark shadow, but it was too late. She hit Simon and both got severe injuries.

Thirdly, after Nicole passed the taxi, all she saw was a dark shadow, which was Simon. She
braked and got her head injured heavily.

In this case, the defendant’s conduct was reasonably predictable to cause injuries to the
plaintiff. Concerning contributory negligence, the defendant might get increased from liability
when the alcohol concentration in the defendant’s body was above average. Although the
plaintiff also caused critical injuries to the defendant, it is indisputable that the alcohol
concentration in the defendant’s body was above average. Therefore, the plaintiff might
successfully sue the defendant to be legally responsible for the incident.

Conclusion
In conclusion, Nicole may legally sue Simon for her injuries under “Tort of Negligence”.
Although Simon got hit but still, he is entirely responsible for Nicole’s injuries due to his
carelessness. In order to prevent this problem, Simon could accept the taxi driver’s option
and wait for a larger vehicle.

Issue 2: Joe v Nicole

Legal Issue
Whether Joe vicariously liable to Nicole’s accident with Simon when he did not notice that
his lightbeams were still on.

Legal rules - Application

This case involves Joe Smith, an experienced taxi driver and Nicole, a female driver driving
from the opposite lane, heading the opposite direction. As Joe arrived at the intersection, he
parked in the middle of the road, turning on his high beams for better visibility. His headlights
were still on when Nicole tried to flash him, hoping Joe would dim his lights. As a result,
Nicole's vision was affected by Joe’s headlights and she was unable to see if there was
anyone behind Joe’s car.

In this case, Joe was not the main cause of the incident and he does not have to take full
responsibility for this incident. Joe refused to drive Simon and his friends home but Simon
tried to convince Joe while he was driving away and calling his dispatcher for a larger
vehicle. However, Joe is an experienced driver and he has been working for the same
company for over 20 years. Joe also completed annual safe driving courses but still forgot to
dim his headlights, blocking Nicole’s vision.

Conclusion
In conclusion, Nicole can not sue Joe to be entirely responsible for her incident. Although
Joe is an experienced taxi driver, his driver licence could be confiscated temporalily when he
forgot to dim the headlights. In order to prevent the problem, Joe could be more
concentrated and noticed that his high beams were still on so he could turn them off,
avoiding blocking vision of drivers on the opposite lane.

Scenario 3:
Issue 1: Gary Grice v Jamala Turner
The legal issue is here whether Jamala Turner broke the agreement in the contract
and can Gary Grice sue Jamala under the tort of negligence by deciding to break the
contract by herself.

Gary after viewing a few places, he found the department of his dream-a three-bedroom
apartment with a beautiful big patio garden in Melbourne, owned by Jamala Turner. After
meeting to negotiate several times, on January 5 of 2017, Jamala sent Gary an email with
an “agreement of sale” as an attachment. The agreement laid out all the topics they have
discussed, including the address of the apartment, apartment description and condition, sale
price and closing costs. The agreement contained the following provision that said, “This
offer will expire by Monday 9am, January 19 2017”. This means that if Gary Grice did not
accept this offer till 9am Monday, January 19 in 2017, the offer will expire, and Jamala
Turner will not sell his dream apartment to him. But before making the decision, Gary
decides to hire a company that specializes in appraisals. He hired their services to appraise
the value of Jamala’s apartment. On January 11 2017, Jamala made the final decision to not
sell the apartment anymore.

Conclusion, Jamala Turner has decided to take back the proposal to Gary Grice and keep
the premises not for sale anymore.
Defense:

Issue 2: Jamala v Flipped Properties

Legal issue
In this case, the subordinate legal issue is whether Jamala (plaintiff) might successfully sue
Flipped Properties (defendant) for disturbing Jamala’s business. Although Jamala declined
Flipped Properties’ offer, the club’s president still attempted to convince Jamala to accept
the deal.

Legal rules - Application

Jamala has had an apartment for more than 20 years and wants to sell it to someone who
would cherish it as much as she has. To discuss the conditions of the apartment sale,
Jamala and Gary had multiple meetings. When Jamala emailed Gary on January 5 with
advice to assist him decide whether to buy the property or not, Gary promptly replied to
inform Jamala of his intentions and left for business. As soon as he left, Russell Jones'
Flipped Company, a third-party buyer, called Jamala to make an offer for a price that was
lower than the existing one ($1000) and included a large discount on remodeling services.
Jamala was aware that Flipped Properties was a for-profit organization with a dubious
reputation, subpar remodeling, and shady methods for obtaining homes at rates below
market value. She politely refused Russell's offer before leaving a scathing voicemail for
him. The following day, Russell personally delivers a check to Jamala's residence in an
attempt to strike a contract with her. Jamala politely declined and insisted that she had never
intended to engage into an agreement with the club. Russell nonetheless slid Jamala's door
while still slipping his check through.

Conclusion
In conclusion, because club president Russell Jones attempted to purchase the house for
less than the market price, Jamala has the right to sue Flipped Properties for her
interference with business. Russell may also face additional culpability because he went to
Jamala's residence without her permission or approval. As a result, he can face charges of
trespassing on someone else's property.

Defense:

Issue 3: Gary Grice v Flipped Properties

The legal issue here is between Gary Grice and Flipped Properties does not have any
related relationship but because Flipped Properties have told Gary an information
which is false from the truth.

Flipped Properties is run by Rusell Jones, a for-profit club of seniors that buy homes and sell
them for profit after renovations. The club has a poor reputation around the area for their
low-quality renovations and the underhanded ways they find to purchase houses at prices
lower than their market price. Flipped Properties has noticed that Jamala Tuner has been
selling properties for $500,000. Russell Jones messaged Jamala with a request to sell the
properties for $450,000 with a discount for the next renovations. After Jamal rejects the offer
from Russell, he comes to Jamala later in the afternoon that day with a check of $450,000
trying to convince Jamala to sell the place. On the same day whenGary was having the
people from the appraisal company come over, a Flipped Properties employee Cora Woods
says that the place has been bought by Flipped Properties. This misleading information has
made Gary decide to send the letter with the signed agreement. Before Jamala receives
Gary's letter of agreement, she tells Gary that the deal is canceled. Because of the false
information given by Cora Woods, Gary Grice has missed a deal from Jamal Turner.

Conclusion, Mr Gary can sue Flipped Properties for false statements according to the
slander lawsuit. This has caused Gary Grice to lose a deal, damaging him financially $1000
for hiring the appraisal company.

Defense: