Question 1- Lie Detectors Act 1983 (NSW

LAW EXTENSION COMMITTEE

SUMMER 2017-2018
01 LEGAL INSTITUTIONS	ASSIGNMENT 1

 

INSTRUCTIONS

In Legal Institutions, there are TWO COMPULSORY ASSIGNMENTS. The first assignment is for practice and feedback. Comments will be provided, but no marks assigned other than ‘satisfactory’ or ‘unsatisfactory’. The second assignment will be marked.

Assignments must be submitted by the due date unless an extension has been granted. Extensions need to be requested by email PRIOR to the assignment due date and specific supporting evidence provided. Late assignments attract a penalty of one mark out of 20, or 5% of the total marks available, per day. A pass mark is 50%. Assignments that are received more than ten days after the published due date will not be accepted. Please note that students granted an extension must still submit their assignment within ten days of the original assignment due date.

Assignments are assessed according to the “Assignment Grading and Assessment Criteria” outlined in the Course Information Handbook. Prior to the examination, assignments will be returned to students and results posted on students’ individual Results screen of the LEC Webcampus. Students are responsible for checking their Results screen and ascertaining their eligibility to sit for the examination.

The rules regarding the presentation of assignments and instructions on how to submit an assignment are set out in the Guide to the Presentation and Submission of Assignments available on the LEC Webcampus.  Please read this guide carefully before completing and submitting this assignment.

 

Completed assignments should be lodged through the LEC Webcampus and received by 11:59pm (Australian Eastern Daylight Time) on Sunday 10 December 2017.

Please download the Assignment Coversheet.  The coversheet will be the first page of your assignment.  Save it with the name you intend to use for the assignment, and begin your answer on the second page.  Make sure you complete the Assignment Coversheet by entering in your Full Name and Address Details and the Date you lodged your assignment on the Webcampus. Next to “Signed”, type your name to acknowledge that the assignment is your own work.

 

COMPULSORY ASSIGNMENT 1

This assignment consists of four questions – all four questions must be answered.

Question 1:

Read and consider the Lie Detectors Act 1983 (NSW).

 

• What is the Long Title of the Act?
• There is one offence in the Act which might particularly concern broadcasters or news agencies – which offence is that and in what section is that offence contained?
• There are 3 types of offences described in section 5(1) of the Act – briefly describe each of those 3 offences in your own words (1-2 lines each – don’t simply re-write the provisions of the Act).
• What are each of the elements of the first offence described in Section 5(1) of the Act?
• What are the penalties for a (human) person found guilty of an offence under the Act? (hint – see also Section 17 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW))

 

 

Question 2:

Read Ward v Byham [1956] 1 W.L.R. 496 and briefly answer the following questions in relation to the case.  You should support your answers by direct reference to the case where appropriate.

(Note: this case deals with one of the main elements required for there to be an enforceable contract at law – ‘consideration’.  Consideration can be defined as some form of benefit moving from the person receiving the good, service or promise under the contract to the person giving the good, service or promise – in other words, it is sometimes called ‘the price of the promise’. There are also many rules about what constitutes lawful or valuable consideration for a contract to be enforceable.  This case examines just one of those rules.)

• What is the citation for this case? Explain what each element in the citation means.
• Are there any alternative citations, if so, what are they?
• In which court was this case decided?
• Who was the Appellant (the father or the mother)? What were they at first instance?
• Who was the Respondent in this case? What were they at first instance?
• When was the case decided?
• Who were the judges in the Appeal case? Why are the judgments in this particular order? How many judges sat? Why?
• Who was the judge at first instance? In what court did he sit?
• Who represented each party in the case, both solicitors and barristers?
• What are the relevant facts?
• What is the issue of law before the court?
• What is the ratio decidendi of the case?
• Were there any obiter dicta remarks made? If so, what were they and by whom were they made?
• Were there any minority findings in the judgement? If so, what were they and by whom were they made?
• What was the decision?

 

Question 3:

The following questions test your ability to apply processes learnt in the computer lab legal research session at the Legal Institutions Essential Intensive Introductory Classes. In this session students were taught how to find Australian and UK cases.

To assist you with these exercises you may wish to refer to the worksheet provided at this session. This worksheet (and answers to the exercises in the worksheet) are available via LEC Web Campus > Legal Skills > Library Legal Research > Finding Cases Worksheet (From Introductory Weekend) and Answers to Finding Cases Worksheet (From Introductory Weekend).

Access the full text of the following cases to answer the questions below:

Plaintiff S297/2013 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2014) 255 CLR 179

1. S297 was a citizen of which country?

 

2. On what date did the Minister decide to permit S297 to apply for a protection visa?

 

3. At what page in the above cited law report does the judgment of Crennan, Bell, Gageler and Keane JJ commence?

Coffs Harbour City Council v McLeod [2016] NSWCA 94 (3 May 2016)

1. Who were the judges in this case?

 

2. What was the total amount awarded to the respondent in damages for his injuries?

 

3. What message did the respondent send to his wife via Facebook Messenger shortly after slipping over on the footpath?

Curistan v Times Newspapers Ltd [2008] 1 WLR 126

1. The newspaper paper article central to the defamation claim in this case reported on an allegation that the claimant had laundered money for which organisation?

 

2. Who was the judge in this case?

 

3. What page of the above cited law report does the judgment conclude?

Question 4:

The answer to Question 4 should be in essay format, and within 1200 words. Your written work should conform to all appropriate conventions of grammar and spelling and the directions set out in the Guide to the Presentation and Submission of Assignments available on the LEC Webcampus.

Martin was a stable manager.

He went to Home Appliance Haven on a Saturday morning to buy a new washing machine for the stables he managed.

Martin told the sales assistant, Mandy, that he needed a washing machine that could wash delicate fabrics as he was responsible for washing all the jockeys’ silks (ie. the silk clothes that jockeys wear when they are racing) after each racing carnival. Mandy said that wouldn’t be a problem if Martin bought the new Genteel Mark II washing machine.

Martin said he had never heard of that brand, but Mandy assured him that she had a lot of experience with washing machines and that she highly recommended this particular washing machine.  As a result, Martin was happy to rely on her expertise with respect to this washing machine and silk clothes.

When Martin went to the check-out counter to pay the $1,500 for the washing machine, Martin was asked whether he would like to pay $200 extra for ‘same-day’ delivery otherwise the washing machine would be delivered in a weeks’ time.  He said yes because there was a racing carnival the next day and he needed the washing machine straight away.  He was also asked whether he would like access to the Terms and Conditions of Sale via the internet or in hard copy.  He asked for a hard copy and was given a 100 page booklet on the contract terms.

When Martin got home he noticed that the shop cashier must have attached to his receipt and delivery instructions, a small slip of paper that said:

It is a condition of a sale that any returns must be made within 12 hours of delivery.  No returns will be accepted after this time.

Martin took delivery of the washing machine around 5pm that day (Saturday).

At the end of the racing carnival the next day, (which was around 5pm) Martin put all his racing silks into the new washing machine, washed them using the delicate option and hung them up to dry overnight.  In the morning, (Monday) he checked all the racing silks and noticed that all of them had shrunk.  This is not what he expected at all – he was very angry.

Martin immediately rang Home Appliance Haven to complain, but was told that he should consult condition 250 of the Standard Terms of Conditions of Sale.  When he found condition 250 (which was very difficult because it was in 6 font type) – he found it said:

Purchaser agrees that they will pay a $3,000 processing fee before requesting any refund, and, if refund is approved, a further $500 administration fee.