(TIỂU LUẬN) ASSESSMENT 2 TEAM PAPER the collins multidisciplinary clinic v (july v doctor denning)

Subject Code: Subject Name: LAW2447 Comercial Law Student name - ID: Pham Quoc Khai - s3836559 Tran Bao Ngoc – s3836222 Tran Hai Bang – s3752939 Group: 89 Campus: RMIT Viet Nam - SGS Lecturer's Name: Mr Son Nguyen Tan Word count: 4030 ASSESSMENT 2: TEAM PAPER TABLE OF CONTENT Scenario I Tort of Negligence Case 1: Manny v Harry Case 2: Manny v (Ray and Bob) Case 3: Manny v Ray Case 4: Manny v Walstore Case 5: Manny v (Mickey and Minnie) II Vicarious Liability Case 6: Manny v Walstore Scenario I Tort of Negligence Case 1: Billy Local v Janet Whiz Case 2: Billy Local v Janet Whiz Case 3: July v Billy Local 10 Case 4: July v Janet Whiz 11 Case 5: Billy Local v Doctor Denning 12 Case 6: July v Doctor Denning 13 II Vicarious Liability Case 7: The Great Lake Shopping Mall v (Billy Local v Janet Whiz) 13 Case 8: The Great Lake Shopping Mall v (July v Janet Whiz) 14 Case 9: The Collins Multidisciplinary Clinic v (Local v Doctor Denning) 14 Case 10: The Collins Multidisciplinary Clinic v (July v Doctor Denning) 15 Scenario Case 1: Abel Movers v Cain Construction Co Ltd (CCC) 15 Case 2: Algernon v Basil 16 Scenario 1: I Tort of Negligence Case 1: Manny v Harry In this situation, Manny is the plaintiff and Harry is the defendant The main legal issue here is whether Manny can sue Harry under Tort of Negligence (TOC) because of grabbing Manny by the elbow and making Manny fell on the ground First of all, to determine the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant, the “neighbor test” must be considered here based on Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]1 Harry pulled Manny down on the floor, that action caused potential harm for the plaintiff Additionally, Harry was in the crowd and Manny was also there Therefore, the “neighbor test” is satisfied So, Harry owed a Duty of Care (DOC) to Manny To decide whether Harry breached a DOC that he owed Manny By applying the rules in section 43 Clivil Law (Wrongs) Act 20022, we need to analyze four factors of Standard of Care (SOC): the probability of harm in Bolton v Stone [1951]3, the likely seriousness of harm in Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951]4, the cost of taking precaution in Latimer v AEC [1953]5, and social utility in Watt v Hertfordshire County Council [1964]6 Firstly, the probability of harm in this situation is medium to high because in the crowd, when someone is grabbed suddenly, they tend to loose the balance and fall on the ground Secondly, the likely seriousness of harm is also high Once the accident is happened, a person, who fell on the ground can be trampled by the crowd and get serious injuries like broken nose, bruises However, the cost of taking precaution is easy by not pulling Manny Finally, the action of defendant is useless for the society because Harry’s action can cause disorder for surrounding people Hence, Harry breached the DOC that Donoghue v Steven [1932] AC 562 Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) s 43(1); Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) s 5B (1); Civil Liability Act 2003 (Q1d) s 9(1); Civil Liability Act 1936 (SA) s 32(1); Civil Liability Act 2002 (Tas) s 11; Civil Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) s 48(1); Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA) s 5B(1) Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850 Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] AC 367 Latimer v AEC [1953] AC 643 Watt v Hertfordshire County Council [1964] WLR 835 he owed Manny Moreover, the defendant caused the plaintiff to suffer serious damage was reasonably foreseeable · Defence Based on Alexander v Manley [2004]7, contributory negligence defence is made here, Manny already knows Walstore has no plans or warning signs to ensure the order of the crowd, so Manny must recognize the danger and protect himself by staying away the crowd However, he still joined to the crowd even though he knew the crowd can cause potential harm to him Overall, all of requirements are convinced So Manny can sue Harry under Tort of Negligence However, Harry can reduce his liability due to the contributory negligence defence Case 2: Manny v (Bob and Ray) In this case, Manny is the plaintiff, Bob and Ray are the defendants The significant issue here is if Manny can sue Bob and Ray under Tort of Negligence because of the careless of taking precaution in the store The first demand is if Bob and Ray owed Manny a DOC It is clear that the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants is “Occupier and Guest” based on Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna [1987] Bob and Ray were security of Walstore and had a mission to manage the order of the store and Manny was a guest in Walstore Hence, Bob and Ray had a responsibility for accident that happened in the store Therefore, the Bob and Ray owed Manny a DOC The second demand is whether Bob and Ray breached DOC that they owed Manny All four factors of SOC are also considered as the case above Firstly, based on Bolton v Stone [1951] (cited above) the probability of harm is medium to high To interpret, the store had a discount program Then, the store would be full of people Therefore, the scuffle is unavoidable Secondly, according to Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] (cited above), the likely seriousness of harm is also high as the same interpretation in case Besides, based on Latimer v AEC [1953] (cited above), it is easy to avoid the accident by setting up a sign to ask customer making a line to get into the store Finally, there is no social useful activity in this case because Alexander v Manley [2004] WASCA 140 Australian Safeways Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna [1987] 162 CLR 479 488 the careless of defendants did not contribute any advantages to society as stated in Watt v Hertfordshire County Council [1964] (cited above) Furthermore, the defendant caused the plaintiff to suffer serious damage was reasonably foreseeable Therefore, Bob and Ray breach the DOC that they owed Manny · Defence The contributory negligence defence is the same as Manny v Harry In conclusion, Manny can successfully sue Bob and Ray under Tort of Negligence However, the defendants can reduce the damage rewards due to contributory negligence Case 3: Manny v Ray In this situation, Manny is the plaintiff, Ray is the defendant The significant issue here is whether Manny can sue Ray under TON because Manny was intentionally injured by Ray The first deputy legal issue is whether Ray owed a DOC to Manny Like Manny v Bob and Ray, the relationship between Manny and Ray is also “Occupiers and Guests” (cited above) Hence, Ray owed Manny a DOC The second subordinate legal issue is whether Ray breached the DOC that he owed Manny Firstly, as stated in Bolton v Stone [1951] (cited above), the probability of harm is low since Ray just wanted to grab Manny out of the crowd Based on Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] (cited above), the likely seriousness of harm is just medium, because in a situation, when people pull someone with supportive purpose, they tend to try to keep safe for victim As stated in Latimer v AEC [1953] (cited above), there is a useful social activity in this case The reason is the defendant’s conduct is to save the plaintiff’s life Additionally, based on Watt v Hertfordshire County Council [1964] (cited above), it will be difficult to take a precaution, because if Ray had not done that, Manny would have been killed by the crowd Overall, Ray met the SOC Consequently, Manny cannot sue Ray Case 4: Manny v Walstore In this case, the plaintiff is Manny and the defendant is Walstore The crucial issue here is whether Manny can sue Walstore under TON because of the careless of Walstore in managing the order of the store The first legal issue is whether Walstore owed Manny a DOC As the case of Manny v Bob and Ray, it is obvious that the relationship between Walstore and Manny is “Occupiers and Guests” Cited above) Therefore, Walstore owed Manny a DOC The second legal issue is whether Walstore breached the DOC that they owed Manny All of four elements in SOC in this case are considered as the same with the case of Manny v Bob and Ray The third requirement is satisfied as the defendant caused the plaintiff to suffer serious damage was reasonably foreseeable Hence, Walstore breached a DOC that they owed Manny · Defence In contrast, the contributory negligence defence of Walstore is similar to the case of Manny v Bob and Ray Overall, Manny can sue Walstore under TOC But Walstore can reduce the damage rewards due to contributory negligence defence Case 5: Manny v (Mickey and Minnie) In this case the plaintiff is Manny, the defendants are Mickey and Minnie The main legal issue here is whether Manny can sue Mickey and Minnie under TOC due to running over on Manny The first legal issue is whether Mickey and Minnie owed Manny a DOC The “neighbor test” is considered here based on Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] (cited above) as the explanation is similar to the case of Manny V Harry Therefore, Mickey and Minnie owed Manny a DOC The second legal issue is whether Mickey and Minnie breached a DOC Based on Bolton v Stone [1951] (cited above), the probability of harm is medium to high as Mickey and Minnie run in the crowd quickly to get the cheap laptop, therefore, they only pay attention to where to store cheap laptops, so they not pay attention to their surroundings According to Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] (cited above), the likely seriousness of harm is high as the interpretation is similar to the case of Manny v Harry As stated in Watt v Hertfordshire County Council [1964] (cited above), it is easy to take precaution because instead of running quickly, they should slow down and pay close attention to their surroundings Based on Latimer v AEC [1953] (cited above), the social utility is the same with the case of Manny v Harry Additionally, the third requirement is satisfied as the defendant caused the plaintiff to suffer serious damage was reasonably foreseeable Mickey and Mannie breached the DOC that they owed Manny · Defence On the other hand, the contributory negligence defence is also made It is similar to the case of Manny v Harry Overall, Manny can successfully sue Mickey and Minnie under TOC But the defendants can reduce the liability because of making a contributory negligence defence strongly II Vicarious liability Case 6: Manny v Walstore The main legal issue here is whether Manny can sue Walstore under vicarious liability because of the careless conduct of Walstore employees To consider Manny can sue Walstore under vicarious liability or not, the plaintiff has to demonstrate that the employee committed tort of negligence for the plaintiff inside the extent of employee’s work That implies the representative perform approved assignments to upgrade the advantages for the business9 In this case, Bob and Ray were the security of Walstore, and they had responsibility to keep order in the store, but their mission has failed and they committed TOC Therefore, Walstore is also responsible for Manny’s accident In conclusion, Manny can also successfully sue Walstore under vicarious liability 9Century Insurance v Northern Ireland Road Transport Board [1942] AC 509 Scenario 2: I Tort of negligence: Case 1: BILLY LOCAL (plaintiff) v JANET WHIZ (defendant) The main legal issue is whether Local can sue Whiz under TON for causing Local the head injury in the firework show · Duty of Care: The first issue is whether Whiz owed Local a DOC By applying neighbor test based on Lord Atkin in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] (cited above), it was reasonably foreseeable that Whiz’s conduct could cause harm to Local as the firework was hit by Whiz’s foot and fired at awkward angles, then potentially slammed into other people including Local Indeed, Local was closely and directly affected by Whiz’s conduct as Local was standing beside Whiz at that time Hence, the neighbor test is satisfied and Whiz owed Local a DOC · Breach of Duty of Care: The second issue is whether Whiz breached her DOC First of all, probability of harm cited in Bolton v Stone [1951] is one of the four factors that needs to be considered to determine whether Whiz breached her DOC For this case, the probability of harm is high as Whiz’s foot caused the firework to fire at different and uncontrollable angles which obviously could hit and injure anyone nearby even though they stay meters away as following the warning sign Secondly, according to Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] (cited above), the likely seriousness of harm is high because the fireworks are made from sturdy and solid materials which seriously damage the body and cause severe injury, even death if they hit Besides, when considering the cost of taking precautions based on Latimer v AEC [1953] (cited above), it was cheap and easy for Whiz as she could be careful to ask Local to leave outside the firework zone as following the sign’s instruction before lighting the firework and talk about the smoke problem after the show Consequently, Whiz could avoid the screaming of Local’s complaint and was not in a hurry which caused her foot hitting the firework that led to Local’s injury Finally, the legal rules of social utility stated in Watt v Hertfordshire County Council [1954] (cited above) is considered In this case, there was no social utility as Whiz’s conduct was not useful to the society Overall, after considering the four elements of SOC above, Whiz did not what a reasonable person would have done in the same situation Thus, Whiz breached her DOC In this case, Whiz caused Local to suffer injury which was reasonably foreseeable · Defences: Although Whiz committed a tort of negligence, Whiz can escape from liability completely by establishing a full defence related to voluntary assumption of risk (Insurance Commissioner v Joyce [1948])10 To be specific, Whiz had put a sign in the Mall garden to warn everybody to stay meters away from the fireworks While entering the firework zone and standing beside Whiz where Whiz was about to lighting the firework, Local was fully aware of the risk and voluntarily assumed that risk In addition, Local’s action made Whiz in haste that cause her carelessly hitting the firework Thus, Whiz can be relieved of all liability · Conclusion: To conclude, Billy Local can successfully sue Whiz under TON However, Whiz can be completely relieved her liability by establishing a full defence Case 2: BILLY LOCAL (plaintiff) v JANET WHIZ (defendant) The main legal issue is whether Local can sue Whiz under TON for causing smoke from fireworks into Local’s house · Duty of Care: The first subordinate issue is whether Whiz owed Local a DOC By conducting neighbor test cited in Lord Atkin in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] (cited above), the fireworks’ smoke could be potentially harmful to other people nearby Besides, Local was living in a house which is four blocks far away from the Mall and the smoke was also directly blown towards Local’s house, which shows that Local was closely and directly affected by Whiz’s conduct Hence, the neighbor test is satisfied and Whiz owed Local a DOC · Breach of Duty of Care: 10 Insurance Commissioner v Joyce [1948] HCA 17 By identifying whether Whiz breached her DOC, four factors of SOC are considered Firstly, smoke from fireworks could make Local suffer some breathing issues, and emotional distress which was mentioned in the scenario that Local was really upset However, Local’s house was quite far away, about blocks from the Mall that was approximately one mile away Thus, the probability of harm (Bolton v Stone [1951] -cited above) was medium Secondly, the likely seriousness of harm (Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] -cited above) was high because heavy smoke blown directly to Local’s house which could definitely leads Local who was an old, retired teacher to serious breathing problems and brain damage as lacking oxygen along with psychological injury However, Whiz made his efforts to prevent the smoke blowing to Local’s house with series of powerful fans but they were not enough Thus, the precautionary cost (Latimer v AEC [1953]-cited above) was considered not easy and expensive to have more powerful fans to reduce the smoke Lastly, there was no social benefit of Whiz’s conduct in this case (Watt v Hertfordshire County Council [1954]-cited above) According to the four factors above, Whiz breached her DOC Besides, Whiz caused Local to suffer injury which was reasonably foreseeable Conclusion: · In conclusion, Local can successfully sue Whiz under TON for causing smoke to Local’s house Case 3: JULY (plaintiff) v BILLY LOCAL (defendant) The main legal issue is whether July can sue Local under TON for July’s arm injury · Duty of Care: The first subordinate issue is whether Local owed July a DOC Since there is no relationship between July and Local recognized in established categories of DOC, neighbor test (Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]-cited above) must be done As Local was knocked out by the firework and then probably hit other guests attending the show including July, which potentially made July being harmed Besides, July was standing nearby Local when the accident happened so July was closely and directly affected by Local’s conduct Thus, Local owed July a DOC · Breach of Duty of Care: 10 The second subordinate issue is whether Local breached his DOC based on considering the four factors of SOC Firstly, the probability of harm (Bolton v Stone [1951]-cited above) was high as the firework’s power knocking Local who was then hit July was relatively strong, which could cause July fall painfully on the hard surface and injure Next, the likely seriousness of harm (Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] -cited above) was high because being hit by someone with fast speed could make July fall and suffer severe damages and broken bones, which are also causes of death Besides, the cost of taking precaution ( Latimer v AEC [1953]cited above) was considered cheap and easy as Local could stay outside the firework zone which was meters away the firework and talk to Whiz after the show finished instead of standing beside Whiz, complaining and screaming at Whiz during lighting the firework If Local had done this action, Whiz would not have been careless and hasty to hit the firework, which leads to the accident Finally, there was no social utility in this case (Watt v Hertfordshire County Council [1954]-cited above) Overall, based on the four elements considered above, it is concluded that Local breached his DOC In addition, Local caused July to suffer injury which was reasonably foreseeable · Conclusion: In conclusion, July can successfully sue Local under TON for July’s arm injury Case 4: JULY (plaintiff) v JANET WHIZ (defendant) The main legal issue is whether July can sue Whiz under TON for causing July the arm injury in the firework show · Duty of Care: The first issue is whether Whiz owed Local a DOC As July joined the firework show held by Whiz, the relationship between July and Whiz is recognized as ‘Occupiers- Guests’ (cited above) Therefore, Whiz owed July a DOC · Breach of Duty of Care: 11 In this case, the analysis on whether Whiz breached her DOC is totally the same as the case examined above which is BILLY LOCAL v JANET WHIZ Thus, it leads to the conclusion that Whiz breached her DOC · Conclusion: In conclusion, July can successfully sue Whiz under TON for July’s arm injury Case 5: BILLY LOCAL (plaintiff) v DOCTOR DENNING (defendant) The main legal issue is whether Local can sue Doctor Denning under TON for causing brain damage because of not having timely first aid · Duty of Care: The first subordinate issue is whether Denning owed Local a DOC Because Denning was the doctor working during the accident and was asked for helping Local, the relationship between Local and Denning is recognized as ‘Doctors-Patients’11 Therefore, Whiz owed July a DOC · Breach of Duty of Care: The four factors of SOC are considered to determine whether Denning breached his DOC In this case, Doctor Denning rejected giving aid to the patients who was injured in the firework’s accident as well as he knew that other ambulances servicing in the area at that time frequently delayed Hence, the probability of harm (Bolton v Stone [1951]-cited above) was extremely high as Local was not provided timely aid Secondly, the likely seriousness of harm (Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] -cited above) was also high as being delayed during the injures happened and not provided timely first aid could make Local suffer serious damages and the worst possible scenario happening was Local’s death Moreover, the precautionary cost (Latimer v AEC [1953]-cited above) in this case was considered cheap and easy because Denning could be aware of the accident’s emergency and prioritized saving Local Besides, Denning could ask other colleagues working on that day for help if he was busy In case all the doctors were busy, Collins Multidisciplinary clinic probably has their own ambulances that Denning could ask for delivering Local to other nearby hospitals as quickly as possible Lastly, there was no social 11 Rogers v Whitaker [1992] 175 CLR 479 12 benefit in this case (Watt v Hertfordshire County Council [1954]-cited above) Overall, after reflecting the four factors of SOC above, Denning is determined to breach his DOC In addtion, Whiz caused Local to suffer injury which was reasonably foreseeable · Conclusion: In conclusion, Local can successfully sue Denning under TON for his brain damage Case 6: JULY (plaintiff) v DOCTOR DENNING (defendant) The main legal issue is whether Local can sue Doctor Denning under TON for causing wounds’ infection In this case, the duty of care, breach of duty of care are examined exactly the same as the case above which is BILLY LOCAL v DOCTOR DENNING Therefore, July can successfully sue Denning under TON for her bacterial infection on the wounds II Vicarious liability: Case 7: The Great Lake Shopping Mall v (BILLY LOCAL v JANET WHIZ) The main legal issue is whether the Mall was vicariously liable for Whiz’ s TON towards Local as she caused Local the serious head injury · The Scope of Employment: By solving this case, Local’s action is considered whether it was done within the “scope of employment” stated in Century Insurance v Northern Island Road Transport Board [1942] -cited above Firstly, Local was a marketer hired by the Mall and was working in the show, one of promotional activities of the Mall which was an authorized task Secondly, Local’s action brought benefit for the Mall as the show attracted customers and created community interest Thus, two factors of the “scope of employment” were satisfied, which can be concluded that the Mall has vicarious liability for the case Local v Whiz · Conclusion: 13 Local can successfully sue the Mall under vicarious liability as well as receive greater compensation rather than suing their employee, Whiz Case 8: The Great Lake Shopping Mall v (JULY v JANET WHIZ) The main legal issue is whether the Mall was vicariously liable for Whiz’ s TON towards July as she caused July the severe arm injury · The Scope of Employment: The “scope of employment” in this case is examined exactly the same as the case above which is The Great Lake Shopping Mall v (BILLY LOCAL v JANET WHIZ) Therefore, the Mall was also vicariously liable for the case July v Whiz · Conclusion: In conclusion, July can successfully sue the Mall under vicarious liability as well as receive greater compensation rather than suing their employee, Whiz Case 9: The Collins Multidisciplinary Clinic v (LOCAL v DOCTOR DENNING) The main legal issue is whether the Clinic was vicariously liable for Denning’ s tort towards Local as he caused Local severe brain damage · The Scope of Employment: In this case, The action of Denning is determined whether it is within the “scope of employment” (Century Insurance v Northern Island Road Transport Board [1942] -cited above) Firstly, Denning was the doctor who was working in the Clinic at that time the incident happened and took care of patients, which illustrates that Denning performed an authorized task that was beneficial for the Clinic Although Denning refused to provide aid to Local as an Clinic’s employee, two elements of the “scope of employment” were satisfied Thus, the Clinic was vicariously liable for the case between Local and Denning · Conclusion: 14 Local can successfully sue the Clinic under vicarious liability rather than suing their employee, Denning for higher compensation in return Case 10:The Collins Multidisciplinary Clinic v (JULY v DOCTOR DENNING) The main legal issue is whether the Clinic was vicariously liable for Denning’ s tort towards July as he caused July serious bacterial infection on her broken aim · The Scope of Employment: In this case, The action of Denning is examined the same as the case above which is The Collins Multidisciplinary Clinic v (LOCAL v DOCTOR DENNING) Thus, the Clinic was vicariously liable for the case between July and Denning · Conclusion: July can successfully sue the Clinic under vicarious liability rather than suing their employee, Denning as it comes to greater compensation Scenario 3: CONTRACT LAW: Case - Abel Movers v Cain Construction Co Ltd (CCC): Can CCC sue Abel Movers because of the quotation? Issue: Was the contract law between Abel Movers v CCC valid? Rule: The contract must be met three requirements of the Agreement which are: · A valid agreement must be satisfied the offer and the acceptance12 · Consideration is confirmed by both parties13 12 Smith v Hughes [1871] LR QB 59 13 Biotechnology Australia Pty Ltd v Pace (1988) 15 NSWLR 130 15 · The intention of both sides to create legal relations14 Offer: Abel Movers Offeree: CCC Application: At first, CCC asked for a quotation, Abel Movers answered this by giving CCC two quoting prices on 30 May and 31 May Based on Harvey v Facey (1893)15, the answer of Abel Movers was to supply information for CCC’s request Although, both emails included precise and comprehensive information Furthermore, CCC was willing to enter the job as CCC inquired about detail working prices in short and long days Following Mildura Office Equipment & Supplies Pty Ltd v Canon Finance Australia Ltd (2006)16, these quotations changed from requests to offers Secondly, the two offers about the quoting price were $15,000 and $12,000 On June, CCC accepted the first quotation ($15,000) However, CCC change the one installment to three installments in the same contract form Regarding Hyde v Wrench (1840)17, CCC made a counter-offer to reject the first payment method given by Abel Movers At that time, Abel Movers did not send any acceptance about this counter-offer Leading to the agreement of Abel Movers to CCC did not exist Hence, the contract between Abel Movers and CCC was invalid Conclusion: CCC cannot sue Abel Movers because Abel Movers did not breach the contractual agreement Case - Algernon v Basil: Can Basil sue Algernon because Algernon breached the contract by selling the car for Cynthia? Issue: Did Algernon breach the contract law? 14 Wakeling v Ripley (1951) 51 SR (NSW) 183 15 Harvey v Facey [1893] AC 552 16 Mildura Office Equipment & Supplies Pty Ltd v Canon Finance Australia Ltd - [2006] VSC 42 17 Hyde v Wrench (1840) 49 ER 132 16 Rule: · The contract form is mentioned in case · According to Felthouse v Bindley (1862)18, the communication between parties is the most significant of acceptance Acceptance cannot form in silence Offer: Algernon Offeree: Basil Application: On June, Algernon sent an offer to Basil to sell him the car and would keep the offer open until the afternoon of June Nonetheless, on the morning of June, Basil sent an acceptance to Algernon while Basil has not received the offer letter yet Additionally, Basil and Algernon did not communicate until Algernon read Basil's agreement on the morning of June Meanwhile, the car was already sold for Cynthia on the afternoon of June According to Felthouse v Bindley (1862), it meant Basil’s acceptance was invalid since the communication formed after Algernon sold the car on the day before As a result, there was no contract between Algernon and Basil Otherwise, the advertisement in the first paragraph of the case was an “invitation to treat” following Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots, Court of Appeal (1953) 19 Therefore, this was not an offer Conclusion: Algernon did not breach the contract since the acceptance was invalid Consequently, Basil cannot sue Algernon 18 Felthouse v Bindley [1862] 142 ER 107 19 Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots, Court of Appeal [1953] QB 401 17 BIBLIOGRAPHY Cases Donoghue v Steven [1932] AC 562 Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850 Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] AC 367 Latimer v AEC [1953] AC 643 Watt v Hertfordshire County Council [1964] WLR 835 Alexander v Manley [2004] WASCA 140 Australian Safeways Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna [1987] 162 CLR 479 488 Century Insurance v Northern Ireland Road Transport Board [1942] AC 509 Insurance Commissioner v Joyce [1948] HCA 17 Rogers v Whitaker [1992] 175 CLR 479 Smith v Hughes [1871] LR QB 59 Biotechnology Australia Pty Ltd v Pace (1988) 15 NSWLR 130 Wakeling v Ripley (1951) 51 SR (NSW) 183 Harvey v Facey [1893] AC 552 Mildura Office Equipment & Supplies Pty Ltd v Canon Finance Australia Ltd - [2006] VSC 42 Hyde v Wrench (1840) 49 ER 132 Felthouse v Bindley [1862] 142 ER 107 Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots, Court of Appeal [1953] QB 401 Legislation Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) s 43(1) Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) s 5B (1) Civil Liability Act 2003 (Q1d) s 9(1) Civil Liability Act 1936 (SA) s 32(1) Civil Liability Act 2002 (Tas) s 11 Civil Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) s 48(1) Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA) s 5B(1) 18 19 ... 7: The Great Lake Shopping Mall v (Billy Local v Janet Whiz) 13 Case 8: The Great Lake Shopping Mall v (July v Janet Whiz) 14 Case 9: The Collins Multidisciplinary Clinic v (Local v Doctor Denning). .. sue the Clinic under vicarious liability rather than suing their employee, Denning for higher compensation in return Case 10 :The Collins Multidisciplinary Clinic v (JULY v DOCTOR DENNING) The. .. of Denning is examined the same as the case above which is The Collins Multidisciplinary Clinic v (LOCAL v DOCTOR DENNING) Thus, the Clinic was vicariously liable for the case between July and