Principles of business and corporation law

must have been foreseeable to a ‘reasonable person’ in the position of the defendant that there was a real risk of injury or harm Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 2. plaintiff was in a such a ‘close and direct’ relationship with the defendant that the defendant ought reasonably to have had them in contemplation. Legal 'duty relationship’ will exist between persons in the position of the plaintiff and defendant Breach of Duty –Standard of Care test Civil Liability Act (Qld). Objective test to uphold standard care to the desired level-Provides a four factors that a reasonable defendant would have considered on a balance of probabilities to shield the plaintiff against the harm as follows: (a) the probability that the harm would occur if care was not taken: (b) the likely magnitude of that harm: (c) the burden of eliminating the harm; (d) the social utility of the action that resulted into harm: Application of Law The modern Australian law recognizes two enforceable aspects of the concept of negligence which comprise of foreseeability risk of harm and negligence calculus.

Foreseeability of the risk of harm legally means to the question whether the defendant as a reasonable person owed the plaintiff duty of care Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562. In this case, the standard reasonable care concerning what was prudent for Felix as a financial advisor as at the date he issued the investment advice about money markets as per the Civil Liability Act (Qld). Probability tests the scientific nature of the event that may cause the risk, and that, a less probable event may get considered as foreseeable when the individual is aware or ought to be aware of its past occurrence. According to Civil Liability Act (Qld), the fact Franco and Grate ought to have foreseen a specific event or the information they knew does not matter, however, what the Felix as a financial professional with a good reputation would have known.

  From the case, the event as described by the Australian Clean Energy Council reported made the financial risk so probable and the harm was so likely to occur than the defendant would have not afforded to ignore it. Despite being Finco Pty Ltd’s employee with 20 years of experience in the money market, he is not aware of the share market performance concerning the Australian Clean Energy Council report that was released one year before advancing his investment advice. What remedies are available to Franco and ACCC against Uptown Tiles under ACL? Law The Australian Consumer Law (ACL) - Schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. Misleading and Deceptive Conduct Misleading and Deceptive claims termed illegal under ACL. According s. 18(1) of the ACL: Regardless of how a business communicates with the client, ‘A person must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive.

’ The following must get satisfied: 1. In the case, Jake, who is Uptown Tiles sales representative promised to deliver quality premium tiles and installation service as a package which the couple purchased. However, Uptown Tiles later dispatched the standard non-slip tiles which did not give out the presentable installation as the floor surface was loose and experienced major cracks. Jake took advantage of Franco and Greta’s poor English eloquence weakness to deceive them about the quality and type of tiles.   As a sales representative of Uptown tiles, Jake acted contrary to what is expected of him. He unfairly conducted himself by making Franco and Greta sign a fifteen-page contract document. As a result, Uptown tiles shall have to pay $66,000. 00 within the 21 days from the date the notice got issued.