(TIỂU LUẬN) the defendant caused the plaintiff to suffer injury which was reasonably foreseeable

Course Name Commercial Law Course Code LAW2447 Lecture Name Esmira Hackenberg Group Assignment Team 45 University location RMIT - Saigon Campus Student Name and ID Luu Trung Nguyen (s3752602) Trang Mai Phuong (s3741288) Nguyen Nam Khanh (s3817803) Word Counts 3684words (Excluding references and titles) Due Date: Monday, 16:00PM, August 10th, 2020 Table of Content Scenario 1: 1.1 Sarah v Charles 1.2 Sam v Charles 1.3 Charles v Free 4&5 1.4 Sarah v Free 5&6 1.5 Sam v Frees 1.6 Sam v Fresh Fruit (vicarious liability) 1.7 Sarah v Fresh Fruit (vicarious liability) 6&7 Scenario 2: 2.1 Ryder v Westfield shopping center (WSC) 2.2 Ryder v Robert 2.3 Ryder v a little girl 2.4 Ryder v the girl’s parents (vicarious liability) 2.5 Ryder v the girl’s parents (TON) .9&10 2.6 Ryder v Tom 10 2.7 Ryder v Woolworths supermarket (WS) (vicarious liability) 10 2.8 Ryder v Westfield shopping center (WSC) & the girl’s parents 11 (vicarious liability) 11 Scenario 3: 3.1 Vo v Hoa 12&13 3.2 Vo v Ben 13&14 3.3 Vo v Thu Phuong Deserts (TPD) .14&15 3.4 Vicarious Liability (Vo v TPD) .15&16 Vo v Hoa 15 Vo v Ben 16 Scenario 4: 4.1 Gary v Jamala 16&17 4.2 Russel v Jamala 17 Scenario 1: 1.1) Sarah v Charles: a Legal issue: The main scenario legal issue here is that Summers can sue Charles over Sarah’s injury under the Tort of Negligence (TON) for breaking her arm Because Sarah is still a child and not old enough to take on legal actions, her father can act on her behalf b Legal rules and application: Neighbour Test is required to identify the legal range of this issue following Donoghue v Stevenson1 It was reasonably foreseeable for the defendant’s actions to cause the plaintiff’s harm as he was carelessly driving over the speed limit results in his vehicle losing control thus creating reasonably foreseeable risks The plaintiff was also closely affected by the defendant’s conducts Sarah’s arm was broken directly because of Charles Thus the Neighbour Test is satisfied, Charles owns Sarah the Duty of Care Based on Wyong Shire Council v Shirt 2, the paper determines whether the defendant breached DOC Following Bolton v Stone, the probability of harm is how likely someone will be injured3 The defendant was going over the speed limit and could easily lose control thus the probability of harm is high Paris v Stepney Borough Council is used to examine the seriousness of harm which is also very high Charles was going at the speed of over 100 miles per hour, hitting someone directly could result in fatal damage Third factor follows Latimer v AEC The  cost of taking precautions is low when it does not cost the defendant anything when he just needed to control his emotion and not go over the speed limit There seems to be no social utility in this case In conclusion, the defendant has breached the DOC toward the plaintiff The defendant caused the plaintiff to suffer injury which was reasonably foreseeable c Conclusion: In short, Sarah can successfully sue over Charles over the Tort of Negligence  onoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 D Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40 Bolton v Stone (1951) AC 850 Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951) AC 367 Latimer v AEC (1953) AC 643 1.2) Sam v Charles a Legal issue: This case, Sam can sue Charles over TON This case law is similar to Sarah v Charles b Legal rules and application: First is to establish DOC and the Neighbour Test is needed The foreseeable risk was present when the defendant was going over the speed limit and the plaintiff was closely affected by the defendant’s action Thus the defendant owns the plaintiff DOC The defendant also breached such DOC toward the plaintiff by failing the RSOC The probability of harm 8and the seriousness of harm was high when driving over the speed limit The defendant could have avoided the risk by going slow thus the cost of precaution is low 10 Social utility is not present here thus we can conclude that the defendant has breached the DOC by failing the RSOC The defendant caused the plaintiff to suffer injury which was reasonably foreseeable c Conclusion: In short, Sam can successfully sue over Charles over the Tort of Negligence 1.3) Charles v Free: a Legal issue: The case law must examine whether Fred Free violates the TON toward Chad Charles b Legal rules and application: First, to determine whether the defendant owns the plaintiff DOC, the Neighbour Test is applied11 The defendant’s action can cause reasonably foreseeable risks and whether the plaintiff was closely or directly affected by it Reasonably foreseeable risks were created when the defendant tried to cut ahead of Charles while both cars were both going at very high speed Charles, the plaintiff was closely affected by Free action The defendant owns the plaintiff the Duty of Care based on the Neighbour test Donoghue v Stevenson above n  yong Shire Council v Shirt above n W Bolton v Stone above n Paris v Stepney Borough Council above n 10 Latimer v AEC above n 11 Donoghue v Stevenson above n The paper also determines whether the defendant breached DOC in which the defendant failed the RSOC towards the plaintiff 12 The probability of harm 13 is high, the act of forcefully merging lines while both cars were at a very high speed is very dangerous The seriousness of harm was high when defendant action broke the plaintiff’s arm Furthermore, it is obvious that the higher seriousness of harm, the higher RSOC 14 In addition, the defendant could have easily avoided harm just by driving slower than the speed limit and not merging into the lane while both cars were at high speed thus the cost of taking precautions is low15 Social utility is not present in this case, we can conclude that the defendant breached the DOC by failing the RSOC The defendant caused the plaintiff to suffer injury which was reasonably foreseeable In conclusion, the plaintiff could successfully win the case by the claim of Free committed TON toward Charles Nevertheless, the defendant could potentially counter defense back by claiming contributory risk The plaintiff was going over the speed limit, he was careless and did not hit the break when he was supposed to, which contributed to his injury Going by the ruling of Ingram v Britten 16, Charles was also accountable for this injury thus this is a contributory negligence meaning Free could reduce his liability c Conclusion: At the end, Charles can successfully sue Free for TON but also has to share liability due to contributory negligence 1.4) Sarah v Free a Legal Issue: In this case, Sam represents Sarah to sue Free under the TON when he causes Chad Charles to crash and damage her b Legal rules and Application However, this seems to be unlikely that the plaintiff will win this case because despite that fact that driving over the speed limit could create foreseeable risks The plaintiff was not directly affected by the defendant action but by a third party The damage of the plaintiff was 12  yong Shire Council v Shirt above n W Bolton v Stone above n 14 Paris v Stepney Borough Council above n 15 Latimer v AEC above n 16 Ingram v Britten (1994) Aust Torts Reports 81-291 238 13 not foreseeable by the defendant, it was too remote for the defendant to see Charles will lose control of his truck and cause the plaintiff injury c Conclusion It was too remote for the defendant to take responsibility thus Sarah will not successfully sue Free under TON 1.5) Sam v Free a Legal Issue: This case is similar to the Sarah v Free as Sam can sue Free over TON b Legal rules and application The claim will not likely be successful even though driving at high speed could cause foreseeable risk, the plaintiff was not directly affected by the defendant The damage was not foreseeable and it was too remote for the plaintiff to take responsibility c Conclusion It was too remote for the defendant to take responsibility thus Sam will not successfully sue Free under TON 1.6) Sam v Fresh Fruit a Legal issue: In this case, Sam can suit Fresh Fruit under the Vicarious Liability b Legal rules and application Following Century Insurance v Northern Island Road Transport Board 17, an harmful act was done within the “scope of employment”, from an employee’s action for the advantage of the employer There was no evidence stating that Charles was on official task for Fresh Fruit thus no benefit involving Fresh Fruit c Conclusion Sam will fail to suit Fresh Fruit under the Vicarious Liability 1.7) Sarah v Fresh Fruit a Legal Issue: 17 Century Insurance v Northern Island Road Transport Board [1942] 72 Ll.L.Rep 119 In this case, Sam can represent Sarah as she was too young to take on legal action to sue Fresh Fruit under the Vicarious Liability b Legal rules and application This case is similar to Sam v Fresh Fruit (1.6) in which there is no indication that Charlas was doing any authorized action for Fresh Fruit thus no benefit involved c Conclusion There is not enough legal range for Sarah to win this case law Scenario 2: 2.1 Ryder v Westfield shopping center (WSC) a Legal issue: Whether Ryder can sue WSC under the TON for not cleaning soapy liquid on the floor which is a place occupied by WSC b Legal rules and application: The same legal rules as case scenario 1: Because the area of the accident was the area occupied by the WSC and Ryder is a customer So, the relationship between Ryder and WSC is recognized by DOC as an occupier and guest 18 Therefore, WSC owed Ms Ryder a DOC The potential to hurt 19 is very high Because that place is the common area of the shopping center, many people would walk around the accident area, there is a risk of a slippage being a possibility The level of injury in this case is extremely serious 20 Soap liquid would lead people to fall and if this happens in the elderly it will lead to a risk of death The cost of taking precautions 21 was low WSC just needed to cleansing a patch of soap liquid, there are 18 N J  ames Business Law ed [2017] 220 Bolton v Stone above n 20  aris v Stepney Borough Council above n P 19 21 Latimer v AEC above n no people would be harmed Moreover, there is no social utility for this case Thus, it can be concluded that WSC has breached the DOC c Conclusion Ryder can successfully sue WSC under TON 2.2 Ryder v Robert a Legal issue: Whether Robert owed Ryder a DOC is the first requirement under TON b Legal rules and application: The same legal rules as case scenario 1: Ryder broke her left arm due to Robert's lifting action so he was the one who directly hurt Ryder22 Because of that, Robert owed Ryder a DOC Whether Robert violated the DOC towards Ryder is the second requirement There are four factors The probability of harm 23 was high Robert lifted Ryder when she fell, and he couldn't determine if Ryder was injured so lifting her up was something that could potentially injure her The likely seriousness of harm 24 also was high Robert is not medical staff, he has no medical knowledge, so it is very high for him not to control the level of injury to the victim when moving or lifting the victim The cost of taking precautions 25was really not too much money and extremely simple to do, he just called for an ambulance for her and asked the medical staff to lift her up Therefore, Robert failed to meet the required SOC and breached the DOC c Conclusion Ryder can successfully sue Robert under TON 22 Donoghue v Stevenson above n Bolton v Stone above n Paris v Stepney Borough Council above n 25  atimer v AEC above n L 23 24 2.3 Ryder v a little girl a legal issue: Whether Ryder can sue a little girl under TON for spilling the soap liquid to lead she fell b Legal rules and application: The same legal rules as case scenario 1: The relationship between Ryder and the little girl does not belong to the situation categories of DOC Therefore, the neighbour test has to be applied The action of spilling the soap liquid is clearly harmful 26 Therefore, the neighbour test is satisfied, the little girl owed Ryder DOC However, because of years old and not aware of how dangerous her action was, a little girl does not have to be responsible for her harmful act c Conclusion Ryder unsuccessfully sued the little girl under TON 2.4 Ryder v the girl’s parents (vicarious liability): a legal issue: Whether Ryder can sue the girl’s parent under vicarious liability for their child action b Legal rules and application: The same legal rules as case scenario Although the girl was not aware of how dangerous her action was , the girl’s parents have to be responsible for her action 27 Moreover, the act of the girl led to Ms Ryder fell and compromised her ability to be a dancing teacher c Conclusion Ryder can successfully sue the girl’s parents under vicarious liability 2.5 Ryder v the girl’s parents (TON) a Legal issue: Whether Ryder can sue the girl’s parents under TON when their child was the cause of Ryder's incident b Legal rules and application: 26 Donoghue v Stevenson above n 27 C  entury Insurance v Northern Island Road Transport Board above n 17 The same legal rules as case scenario 1: The relationship between Ryder and the girl’s parents does not belong to the situation categories of DOC Thus, applying the neighbour test is a requirement The act of their daughter is potentially harmful to Ryder 28 So, they owed Ryder a DOC The probability of harm 29 is medium Creating a patch of soap liquid would hurt people walking around that area The likely seriousness of harm 30 is high Because that area is the common area in the shopping center, it is easy to cause accidents The cost of the precaution 31 is low They just needed to take care of their child, the accident would not happen Therefore, they failed to meet the required SOC and breached the DOC c Conclusion: Ryder can successfully sue the girl’s parents under TON 2.6 Ryder v Tom: a Legal issue: Whether Ryder can sue Tom under TON when He opened the bottle of soapy liquid for the 5-year-old child that made Ryder fall b Legal rules and application: The same legal rules as case scenario The relationship between Ryder and Tom does not belong to the situation categories of DOC Because of that, the neighbour test has to be applied Opening a bottle of soap liquid for a little girl is potentially dangerous 32 Therefore, the neighbour test is satisfied, Tom owed Ryder DOC The probability of harm 33 is medium Opening the soap bottle would hurt the girl or people around her when the little girl does not know the dangers of the soap bottle The likely seriousness of harm34 is high because The little girl was not aware of how dangerous the soap bottle was She could drink it or spill it on the floor It's really easy to hurt people around her and herself so the cost of the precaution 35 is low Tom needs to tell her how dangerous the 28 Donoghue v Stevenson above n Bolton v Stone above n Paris v Stepney Borough Council above n 31  atimer v AEC above n L 32  onoghue v Stevenson above n D 33  olton v Stone above n B 34  aris v Stepney Borough Council above n P 35  atimer v AEC above n L 29 30 10 soap bottle was or not open it for her Social utility is not present Therefore, Tom failed to meet the required SOC and breached the DOC c Conclusion: Ryder can successfully sue Tom under TON 2.7 Ryder v Woolworths supermarket (WS) (vicarious liability) a Legal issue: Whether Ryder can sue WS under vicarious liability because Tom (the employee of WS) opened the soap bottle for the little girl b Legal rules and application: The same legal rules as case scenario 1: Tom did commit TON towards Ryder Addition to, Tom is an employee of the WS Selling the product is a duty of Tom in working hours, this is made profit for WS Thus, WS needs to be responsible for Tom’s action 36 c Conclusion Ryder can successfully sue WS under vicarious liability 2.8 Ryder v Westfield shopping center (WSC) & the girl’s parents (vicarious liability) a legal issue: Whether Ryder can sue the WSC under vicarious liability for the girl’s parents b Legal rules and application: The same legal rules as case scenario The girl’s parents did commit vicarious liability towards Ryder However, they were not WSC employees Moreover, taking care of their child did not create profit for WSC So, WSC did not have to be responsible for their actions c Conclusion Ryder can not successfully sue the WSC under vicarious liability 36 Century Insurance v Northern Island Road Transport Board above n 17 11 Scenario 3: 3.1 Vo v Hoa: a Legal issue: The legal issue is whether Hoa violated a TON by dropping the water bucket and forgetting to clean the floor which led Vo to slip on that floor b Legal rules and application: At first, the paper will clarify whether Hoa owed Vo a DOC 37 It was reasonably anticipatable that Hoa’s conduct could potentially harm to individuals because if people in that shop walked through a wet area without realizing a potential danger of the action, they would likely slip on the floor which could cause an injury Furthermore, Hoa’s action had a close and direct effect on Vo Consequently, it is concluded that Hoa owed Vo a duty of care Additionally, the next requirement is whether Hoa breached the DOC that caused harm to Vo and four elements of ROSC will be examined 38 The first element is the probable harm of Hoa’s conduct is utilized to identify the issue 39 If a wet area of the floor cannot be cleaned, the odds are that it is very slippery which possibly causes harm to all individuals in the shop Therefore, the probability of harm is high Secondly, the paper will look for the likely seriousness of harm40 If people slip on a wet floor, they will get some serious issues like getting head or ankle injuries Hence, the seriousness of injuries is high Thirdly, the cost of cleaning a wet floor or putting a notice board is very low and easy to so in this case, the cost of taking precaution is low 41 Next, there seems to be no social utility in this case In general, it is stated that a DOC of Hoa towards Vo had been violated For the final element of a TON, Hoa caused Vo to experience injury which was reasonably predictable Donoghue v Stevenson above n Wyong Shire Council v Shirt above n 39  olton v Stone above n B 40  aris v Stepney Borough Council above n P 37 38 41 Latimer v AEC above n 12 Nevertheless, the scenario did not notice any detailed information whether there was an agreement from Vo to clean the wet area If Vo accepted, she should have noticed the risk she might suffer and voluntarily accepted that risk when she slipped on the floor Consequently, Hoa will relieve liability in this case However, if there was no agreement from Vo and she slipped then Hoa would take more liability 42 Additionally, if Vo was an employee ordered to clean the wet area and she was negligent to slip on it, then Vo negligently contributed to her injury and Hoa will decrease her liability 43 c Conclusion: In general, Vo can sue Hoa for TON if she did not clean the wet area and slip on it In contrast, she cannot sue Hoa for TON if she voluntarily accepted the danger 3.2 Vo v Ben: a Legal issue: The legal issue of the claim is whether Ben breached TON towards Vo when he let the juicing machine unattended during the time Vo suffered the accident b Legal rules and application: The first condition is whether Ben owed Vo a duty of care 44 At first, it is reasonably predictable that Ben’s conduct of leaving an unattended juice machine working will cause harm if the victims were negligent to put their body parts into moving parts of the machine Moreover, the serious injuries of Vo’s left hand was nearly and directly influenced by Ben’s action Consequently, it is stated that Ben owed Vo a DOC The second requirement is whether Ben breached a DOC which caused harm to Vo and the RSOC is applied to clarify the issue 45 Firstly, the possibility of harm from Ben’s action is high because it can easily result in hand injuries for the victims 46 Next, it would be the worst 42 Insurance Commissioner v Joyce (1948) 77 CLR 39 Ingram v Britten above n 16 44 Donoghue v Stevenson above n 45 Wyong Shire Council v Shirt above n 46 Bolton v Stone above n 43 13 scenario for the victims if their hands were put into a juice machine because their hands would be crushed which leads to the loss of body parts or a significant injury As a consequence, the likely seriousness of harm is high 47 Furthermore, when mentioning the cost of precaution, it is very simple and cheap for Ben to turn off the juice machine before he left or asking another employee to shut the machine down Therefore, the cost of precaution in this case is cheap 48 Finally, there is no social utility in this case In conclusion, after analyzing four factors from RSOC, the DOC of Ben towards Vo was violated For the third element of TON, Ben caused Vo to suffer injury which was reasonably foreseeable c Conclusion: In conclusion, Vo can successfully sue Ben because Ben had breached TON 3.3 Vo v Thu Phuong Deserts (TPD): a Legal issue: The legal issue of this case is whether TPD breached a TON towards Vo for not providing a guideline for employees to ensure the safety for people b Legal rules and application: The first condition is whether TPD owed Miss Vo a DOC Because Vo was not in her shift at the time she came to the shop to buy drinks so there was an established DOC between a guest (Vo) and an occupier (TPD)49 Next is whether TDP breached a DOC towards Vo and the ROSC is needed to identify the issue50 At first, being crushed by a juice machine is dangerous for individuals but it is simply realized so as not to happen Therefore, t he probability of harm in this case is low 51 Secondly, providing a guideline for employees to ensure safety takes a high cost because lots 47 Paris v Stepney Borough Council above n Latimer v AEC above n 49 N James Business Law ed [2017] 220 50 Wyong Shire Council v Shirt above n 51 Bolton v Stone above n 48 14 of time and money are required to train employees Therefore, the cost of precaution is high in this situation 52 In short, there is no breach of DOC from TPD to Vo c Conclusion: Generally, Vo cannot successfully sue TPD for violating TON 3.4 Vicarious Liability (Vo v TPD): a Legal issue: The legal issue is whether TPD was vicariously liable with the two cases of Vo v Hoa and Vo v Ben and the scope of employment test is examined to analyze the two issues 53 b Legal rules and application: Vo v Hoa: At p.m, it was Hoa’s shift and Vo suffered injuries because of Hoa’s conduct to drop the water bucket and not to clean it If Hoa was ordered to clean the wet area, she was doing an authorized task and her action is for the advantage of the employer Therefore, it is clear that TPD was vicarious liable However, if Hoa’s duty was cleaning the wet area then TPD seemed not to be vicarious liable In short, if cleaning the wet area was an authorized work for Hoa, it is claimed that the scope of employment test is convinced and TPD was vicariously liable If it was Hoa’s duty to clean the wet area so there was no vicarious liability for TPD Vo v Ben: 52 53 Latimer v AEC above n Century Insurance v Northern Island Road Transport Board above n 17 15 At 5p.m, Vo experienced injuries from Ben’s conduct of not shutting down the machine At this time, Ben was in his shift operating the juice machine which was an authorized work and it is also for the advantage of the employer Therefore, the scope of employment test was proved and TPD was vicariously liable c Conclusion: In brief, TPD is vicariously liable to the case of Vo v Ben Scenario 4: 4.1 Gary v Jalama: a Legal issue: The legal issue is whether Gary can sue Jalama for breaking an enforceable contract b Legal rules and application: At first, an agreement condition which is created by an offer and an acceptance following the rule of Smith v Hughes is examined54 Firstly, the offer element is clarified According to the rule of Mildura Office Equipment & Supplies Pty Ltd v Canon Finance Australia Ltd 55, there was a clear and complete offer between Gary and Jalama because it had a subject to sale (Jalama’s apartment), the parties (Gary and Jalama) and cost (&500,000) Furthermore, on the day Gary was sent an email to buy the apartment from Jalama, he replied back to her so there was communication between them Therefore, when considering the rule of R v Clarke, this offer is valid 56 However, in the acceptance part, Gary had added a condition for Jalama to own the furniture in the apartment on January 10 which means the acceptance was no longer valid based on the rule of Masters v Cameron 57 54 Smith v Hughes [1871] LR QB 597 Mildura Office Equipment & Supplies Pty Ltd v Canon Finance Australia Ltd - [2006] VSC 42 56 R v Clarke [1927] 40 CLR 227 55 57 Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353 16 c Conclusion: In general, since Gary breached the acceptance part so the agreement condition is unsatisfied which means that he can not sue Jamala for breaching the contract 4.2) Russel v Jamala: a Legal issue: In this case law, the main legal issue here is whether Russel can sue Jamala over breaching enforceable contract b Legal rules and application: First it is established whether or not an agreement condition was made stating an agreement must contain an offer and an acceptance 58 In addition, there was an offer when the plaintiff told the defendant that he would like to buy her house with 450.000$ and a big discount for her next renovation 59 Additionally, the rule of Crown v Clarke (1927) 60 is examined in this situation, as the defendant did not express the willingness into a legal enforceable contract with the plaintiff on the terms offered Furthermore, the rule of R  ose & Frank Co v JR is used to examine the intention of legal binding of nature of an agreement 61 The subject matter and the words used in negotiation is not sufficient to bind in a legal contract Jamala’s comment on the phone was obviously sarcastic, later the following day, the defendant also rejected the plaintiff offer Thus there is no agreement between the two and legal binding is not present c Conclusion Russel will not successfully sue Jamala over breach of contract 58 Smith v Hughes above n 54 Mildura Office Equipment & Supplies Pty Ltd v Canon Finance Australia Ltd above n 55 60 Crown v Clarke (1927) 40 CLR 227 59 61 Rose and Frank Co v J.R Crompton & Bros Ltd [1923] KB 261 17 Team Paper – LAW2447 Contribution Evaluation Form I GENERAL INFORMATION: Team Number/Group: 45 Teacher’s Name: Esmira Hackenberg II CONTRIBUTION EVALUATION: My name is  Trang Mai Phuong (s3741288) based on the contribution to the Team Paper, I suggest that the member named Luu Trung Nguyen (s3752602) will receive 33,33 % of the marks for thi Date: August 8th, 2020 My name is  Nguyen Nam Khanh (s3817803) based on the contribution to the Team Paper, I sug The member named Luu Trung Nguyen (s3752602) will receive 33,33 % of the marks for this assessment Date: August 8th, 2020 My name is  Luu Trung Nguyen (s3752602) based on the contribution to the Team Paper, I sugg The member named Luu Trung Nguyen (s3752602) will receive 33,33 % of the marks for this assessment Date: August 8th, 2020 My name is  Luu Trung Nguyen (s3752602) based on the contribution to the Team Paper, I sugges The member named Nguyen Nam Khanh (s3817803) will receive 33,33 % of the marks for this assessment Date: August 8th, 2020 My name is  Trang Mai Phuong (s3741288) based on the contribution to the Team Paper, I sugges The member named Nguyen Nam Khanh (s3817803) will receive 33,33 % of the marks for this assessment Date: August 8th, 2020 18 My name is  Nguyen Nam Khanh (s3817803) based on the contribution to the Team Paper, I sugge The member named Nguyen Nam Khanh (s3817803) will receive 33,33 % of the marks for this assessment Date: August 8th, 2020 My name is  Nguyen Nam Khanh (s3817803) based on the contribution to the Team Paper, I sugge The member named Trang Mai Phuong (s3741288) will receive 33,33 % of the marks for this assessment Date: August 8th, 2020 My name is Luu Trung Nguyen (s3752602) based on the contribution to the Team Paper, I suggest The member named Trang Mai Phuong (s3741288) will receive 33,33 % of the marks for this assessment Date: August 8th, 2020 My name is Trang Mai Phuong (s3741288) based on the contribution to the Team Paper, I suggest The member named Trang Mai Phuong (s3741288) will receive 33,33 % of the marks for this assessment Date: August 8th, 2020 19 ... that the defendant breached the DOC by failing the RSOC The defendant caused the plaintiff to suffer injury which was reasonably foreseeable In conclusion, the plaintiff could successfully win the. .. the DOC toward the plaintiff The defendant caused the plaintiff to suffer injury which was reasonably foreseeable c Conclusion: In short, Sarah can successfully sue over Charles over the Tort of... here thus we can conclude that the defendant has breached the DOC by failing the RSOC The defendant caused the plaintiff to suffer injury which was reasonably foreseeable c Conclusion: In short,