LAWS20028 Assignment s0256285

LAWS20028 Term 2 2014
Written Assessment Item 1
LAW20028: Business Law

Term 2, 2014
Prepared and submitted by:

Haris Ali KHAN S0259475
Ralph ACOSTA S0253128
Shen Yong LIM S0256285
Tutor: Peter Boland

Due Date: 28th August 2014
Date Submitted: 28th August 2014
1
Written Law Assessment Laws20028 (Term 2, 2014)
LAWS20028 Term 2 2014
Question 1A:
The Australian government was founded on a constitution that allocates power
between the commonwealth and the states. Section 51of the Australian constitution
gives power to the Commonwealth to make laws in regards to issues such as defense,
currency and immigration. Other matters that are not in section 51 will be seen as
residual matters and will be left to the states.1
One of the relevant legislative powers of the commonwealth to enact the fair work act
will come under section 51 (xx) which is The Corporations power. This allows the
commonwealth to enact laws on foreign corporations, trading and financial
corporation that is formed within the limits of the commonwealth.2
This section of the constitution extended its power of the commonwealth. This can be
seen in the case NSW v Commonwealth3 in 2006 where the States challenged the
Commonwealth over the use of the corporations power in order to support its work
choice legislation. Section 51 (xx) of the constitution extends to the business
functions and activities of constitution operations thus allowing the Commonwealth to
enact laws of industrial rights and obligation of corporation including their
employees.4
Another power is s 51 xxix constitutes that the commonwealth has the authority to
make laws in respect to external affairs. This part of the constitution does not
elaborate the meaning of external affairs; this has been left for the High Court to
interpret. For a period of the High court has maintained that external affairs relates to
international issues such as treaties and conventions and trade agreements.5 This can
be seen is in Victoria v Commonwealth6 when the high court of Australia supported
aspects of the law controlling industrial relation because of the execution of various
treaties.7 In effect the High court has decided that the external affair power is another
power for the commonwealth to make laws in regard industrial relations.8
For the most part the Commonwealth industrial law based on section 51 (xxxv) which
is conciliation and arbitration power. This allows it to make laws on issues with
respect Conciliation and arbitration for the prevention and settlement of industrial
disputes extending beyond the limits of any one State". Because of limitations of the
words of this section 51 (xxxv) does not allow the parliament to make laws in
industrial disputes or minimum employment conditions. To overcome these limitation
1 Jason Arditi , Industrial Relations: The Referral of Powers (2009) NSW Parliament Library
<http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/publications.nsf/0/D0213A22DC6DA011
CA25763100201CF1/$File/Briefing%20Paper,%20Industrial%20Relations%20-%20The
%20Referral%20of%20Powers.pdf> at 22 August 2014
2
3
4
5
Clive Turner and John Trone, Australian Commercial Law (29th ed, 2013) 33
(2006) 81 ALJR
CCH Australia Limited, Australian Master Fair Work Guide (1st ed, 2010)
Jason Arditi , Industrial Relations: The Referral of Powers (2009) NSW Parliament Library
6 (1996) 187 CLR 416

7 Clive Turner and John Trone, Australian Commercial Law (29th ed, 2013) 33.
8 Andrew Terry (eds), Business and the Law (5th ed, 2009)
2
LAWS20028 Term 2 2014
powers of the commonwealth have used other constitutional power to to gain support
of federal industrial law. For example they have section 51 (i) of the constitution to
enact law with respect trade and commerce.9
Section 51 (xxxvii) of the Australian constitution relates to the referral of powers. It is
one of the powers that promotes cooperative federalism. This allows the
Commonwealth to makes law in "Matters referred to the Parliament of the
Commonwealth by the Parliament or Parliaments of any State or States, but so that
the law shall extend only to states by whose Parliaments the matter is referred, or
which afterwards adopt the law." The effect will allow a change of power from the
state to the commonwealth by doing this allows flexibility.10 An example of state to
referring its powers to the commonwealth can be see with when the Fair work
(Commonwealth powers) and Other Provisions act 2009 was used by the Queensland
parliament. They referred Queensland industrial relation power for all employees to
the Commonwealth. Employees will not be covered by the state and National
Employment standard and modern awards will be in effect.11
Question 1B:
The legislative power of section 51 (xx, xxix, xxxv and xxxvii) for the
Commonwealth are concurrent powers therefore they can both used by the
Commonwealth and states to enact laws.12 Therefore it can be seen that there is a
conflict of interest between the shared powers. The Commonwealth has passed the
Fair Work (Retail Employees) Act 2013 and the Queensland has previously passed the
Retail Trading Act 2012 (Qld). Section 109 of the constitution address Inconsistencies
between the Commonwealth and the States.
When inconsistencies arise between state and commonwealth law under section 109
of the constitution states that if there is a conflict of interest between the state and
commonwealth law; the Commonwealth law will prevail over any state law. Thus
when Parliament makes a law in Section 51 the effect of section 109 will that the
Commonwealth law will prevail of the state law. An example of Commonwealth law
prevailing over state law can be seen in the case of Clyde Engineering Co Ltd V
CowBurn.13
The determining court for inconsistencies with State and Commonwealth law is held
with High Court of Australia. In recent decades the high court has been in favor of
%20Referral%20of%20Powers.pdf> at 22 August 2014.
11 Jessily Webb, Queensland Industrial Relations Power Referred to The

Commonwealth
(2009)
Corney
and
Lind
<
http://www.corneyandlind.com.au/resourcecentre/employment/qld_ir_referred_to_commonwealth/> at 23 August 2014.
12 Clive Turner and John Trone, Australian Commercial Law (29th ed, 2013)
13 (1926) 37 CLR 455
3
LAWS20028 Term 2 2014
the commonwealth parliament. The effect of the act will lead to the expansion of
power to the commonwealth in the allocation of legislative powers between it and the
states.14
The high court of Australia is the Supreme Court in Australia is the final court of
appeal. The high court interprets and applies the laws of Australia.15 Section 76 of the
constitution allows the commonwealth authority to give jurisdiction to the High Court
in constitutional issues. As a result the High court has the final verdict on the validity
of a state or Commonwealth law.16
16 John Carven, Understanding the Australian Legal System (6th ed, 2009)
4
LAWS20028 Term 2 2014
Question 2a:
When an exclusion clause is included in a contract, it limits or exclude the right of
one party to the contract. There are two main criteria to fulfill for any exclusion
clauses to be valid, namely: 1, if the exclusion clause is an expressed term of the
contract and 2, if the loss or damage are covered by the clause.17
In the case of K-Larks v Roderick, the exclusion clause would be legally binding if
Toby has taken reasonable steps to give sufficient notice of the exclusion clauses to
Roderick, or if Roderick has signed the contract, knowing that it is a contractual
documents containing legal terms. In such an event, he would be bounded by all the
terms in that document whether or not Roderick has read the exclusion clauses at the
back of the carriage contract according to the case of LEstrange v Graucob Ltd,18
where the defendant did not read the contract terms but was bounded by it because of
his signature.19
If this contract was in fact unsigned by Roderick, the exclusion clauses might still be
valid since it is part of a contractual document. Toby would be able to argue that any
reasonable person would expect the legal documents to contain contracted terms and
not consider it simply as a receipt.20 Referring to the Balmain New Ferry Co Ltd v
Robertson21 case, the plaintiff has had prior dealings with the defendant, so it can
argued that Roderick did not need to be issued with reasonable notice based on his 2
years experience dealing with K-Larks.
However, it would also be essential to determine if the exclusion clauses were
misrepresented to Roderick. As far as regular customers are concern, the last 3
contracts would be exactly the same as the previous contracts if there was no
reasonable steps taken to bring to attention the addition of the clauses. Hence, the
onus was on Toby to prove that Roderick was aware of the changes before or at the
time the contracts were made, not after the contract has been made, as per the Olley v
Marlborough Court Ltd22. Since the accounts were sent to Roderick after services has
been performed, these clauses were added unilaterally in the favor of K-Larks without
Rodericks consent, thus rendering the exclusion clauses invalid.
In this case the evidence strongly suggest that the exclusion clauses are not effective
legally to protect K-Larks and its contractors from being liable for the losses and
damages they have create as a result of their actions.
Question 2b:
As previously established, K-Larks cannot rely on the exclusion clauses to exclude
themselves from liability. Next, whether a breach of contract occurred must be
investigated. There is no evidence to suggest that the K-Larks contracts were
17
18
19
20
21
22
Paul Latimer, Australian Business Law (30th ed, 2011) 445-446

[1934] 2KB 394
Paul Latimer, Australian Business Law (30th ed, 2011) 447
Shayne Davenport (eds), Business and law in Australia (2012) 222
(1906) 4 CLR
[1949] 1 KB 532
5
LAWS20028 Term 2 2014
bounded by the parol evidence rule, which rejects the admission of extrinsic evidence,
hence Tobys acceptance of Rodericks oral request would be regarded as a collateral
verbal agreement to the main contract.23
K-Lark has accepted Rodericks request to an urgent delivery but failed to perform
according to their collateral verbal agreement, and this constituted a breach of
contract. Toby has guaranteed that the documents would be delivered on time, but as a
result of misinformation on K-Larks part, Roderick and his clients faced substantial
losses. Thus, it is obvious that the causation of Rodericks loss was due to K-Larks
breach of contract. This can be proven on the balance of probabilities by the phone
records of Rodericks secretary who request for an earlier delivery, which was again
confirmed by the courier.24
The terms that were breached by Toby would be regarded as warranty, implicating
that Roderick is entitled to claim for damages of the loss they suffered because of the
breach but does not give him rights to terminate the contract. This is according to the
case of Bettini v Gye25, which demonstrates that even though the defendant has
breached the contract by turning up late for rehearsals, the plaintiff was only entitled
to damages of losses but had no right to terminate the contract. This can be attributed
to the fact that the term of arriving early was not a condition, but a warranty because it
is a subsidiary term to the written terms of the contract as in Rodericks case.26
Furthermore, the principals of remoteness identifies that only the losses flowing from
the breach of contract can be claimed. Roderick has made his special circumstances
clear to Toby that the delivery must be delivered on a specific time to close the deal of
a lucrative contract so Toby had acknowledged what was at stake when he accepted
the request, making him liable for any damages that flowed naturally as a result from
his late delivery. The case of Hadley v Baxendale27 dictates that defendant should
anticipate general and special damages that are reasonably foreseeable from a breach
of contract, including the compound interest for the loss of profit.28
In other words, not only is K-Lark liable for the Rodericks profit loss of $30,000
due to their inputted knowledge regarding the lucrative deal, they might also be
accountable to fully compensate the special damages to Rodericks client worth
$50,000, if Roderick has made settlements with his clients to avoid litigation.
23 Paul Latimer, Australian Business Law (30th ed, 2011) 428

24 Attorney General of Australia, Remedies for Breach of Contract (2013)
Australian
Contract
Law
http://www.ag.gov.au/Consultations/Documents/ReviewofAustraliancontractla
w/Remediesforbreachofcontract.pdf> at 24 August 2014.
25 (1876) 1 QBD 183
27 (1854) 9 Exch 341; 156 ER 145
28 Paul Latimer, Australian Business Law (30th ed, 2011) 485
6
LAWS20028 Term 2 2014
Question 2c
The promise to deliver Rodericks document on time has been recognized as a
collateral verbal agreement. In handling this warranty term, K-Lark was careless in
handling Rodericks request for urgent delivery, while the subcontracted courier has
also overpromised that the delivery can be done on time upon the second request.
Consequently, the document was delivered one day late due to K-Larks
miscommunication.
There are clear indications of negligent misrepresentation involved in this case, where
there was insufficient care to fulfill their duty of care, misinforming the plaintiff that
the delivery would be done on time. Relying on K-larks information, Roderick
proceeded to give confirmation to his clients that the delivery of the documents would
done on time. The Shaddock & Associates Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council29 case
substantiates that liability for negligent misrepresentation encompasses the giving of
advice and information. Hence, Roderick is entitled sue K-Larks for negligent
misrepresentation.
There are several sections of the Australian Competition and Consumer Act (CCA)
which are applicable to this case, like s 18 (1) which forbid traders to be involved in
misleading or deceptive conduct.30 Roderick was misled by the misrepresentative
statements by K-Larks, which induced Roderick into error as per: Byers v Dorotea
Pty Ltd31. In such cases, the relevant test does not require proof for the defendants
intend to mislead through negligent or reckless actions.32
In terms of consumer guarantee, s 60 of the CCA constitute that a trader that provides
services should guarantee due care and skill to the customer.33 K-Larks, in the
miscommunication and mishandling of Rodericks important document, has failed to
exercise their legal obligation of due care.
Furthermore, K-Lark should provide services that are reasonably fit for purpose to
Roderick.34 Rodericks specific purpose to get the document to his client by 1.30pm of
16 March was expressly made known to K-Larks contractors, but this requirement
was not met. Roderick has explicitly stated the results he wished to achieve with
Toby, who guaranteed to perform the service to fit Rodericks purposes.35 In turn,
Roderick trusted the courier services to be achieved reasonably, relying on it to make
important business judgments. Section 62 states that if there is no time limit
agreements within the contract, there should be assurance that services should be
delivered within a reasonable time.36 Evidently, K-Lark which failed to deliver
Rodericks parcel in a timely manner contravene this act.37
29 (1981) 150 CLR 225
30 Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), s 18(1).
31 (1986) 69 ALR 715
33 Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), s 60.
36 Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), s 62.
353.
7
LAWS20028 Term 2 2014
As for the remedy, Roderick is entitled to bring action for the losses and damages
suffered by the negligent misrepresentation of K-Lark which contravened trade
practices contained in the CCA as mentioned above meaning that the profit losses for
the sum of $30,000 can be claimed against K-Larks. If Rodericks client goes ahead
with the lawsuit against him, K-Larks is also liable for the $50,000 loss-based damage
of Rodericks client. Roderick would able to commence action of damages within a
six years period starting from 17 March, the date which the cause of action accrued.38
398.
8
LAWS20028 Term 2 2014
Question 3a:
An agent is the person who allowed specifically or impliedly to act on behalf of a
person to be the principal lawful mediator with a third party. In this case, Henry
Lawson could be considered a universal agent, 39 due to the fact that he was selected to
be the sole agent to represent BBC in the Asia Pacific region. Mr. Lawson has
authority thats give him to make decisions without any prior approvals from principal
BBC.
However, the affiliation of agency may also incur an event known as ratification.
Mr. Lawson acted beyond his ostensible authorities, considered as having actual
authority. He appears to be the principal to the agent, while apparent authority is
manifested by the principal to third party.
Apparent authority is the authority of an agent as it appears to others: HelyHutchinson v Brayhead Ltd.40 The principal affirmatively and intentionally nominate
an agent either by word or conduct to act on behalf of principal. In this case, Mr.
Lawson may have apparent authority due to the fact that he was selected to be the sole
agent to represent BBC in the Asia Pacific region. Mr. Lawson is independent and
make decisions but they have certain limits which is defined in term of the agreements
between the agent and principal. So, Mr. Lawson should work and must follows the
term his of agreement.
With respect of this case, Mr. Lawson is not fulfilling following agent duties: First, he
is not performing his duty in good faith, second, duty to make full disclosure of any
personal interest. Mr Lawson has a duty not to make secret profit. Mr. Lawson should
act for both Ulti and Floaties Ltd and take commission from them. The agent must
provide full disclosure to each party of his intention to act for and receive payment
from them, and must obtain the assent of each party for so acting: Fullwood v Hurley
41
As rightly said in the case of Parker v MacKenna 42 No agent in the court of

agency, in the matters of his agency can be allowed to make any profit without
knowledge of his principal. Mr Lawson should be sincere and loyal with
principal. He should act within the constraint of authority of power given by
principal. It is strictly mentioned that avoid dispute between his personal interests.
his
the
the
the
Mr. Lawson breach of warranty of authority, he uses his authorities within the limits
which given by Ulti. It will be no defense that the agent acted innocently or in mistake
as to the precise extent of the authority and is liable for breach of that warranty Yonge
v Toynbee 43. In light of the situation caused by the breach of warranty of authority by
Mr. Lawson, Ulti can rightfully sue BBC for any damages and terminate the contract.
BBC would not be liable for any of the damages caused, as it was Henry that acted
deceitfully beyond his authority.
204-205
40 (1968) 1 QB 549 at 583 per Lord Denning MR
41 (1928) 2 NSWLR 236
42 (1874) 10 Ch App 96, James LJ
43 (1910) 1 KB 215
9
LAWS20028 Term 2 2014
Question 3b:
A fiduciary duty is a legal connection of confidence in which one person has
responsibility to take care for the right of another party. Following are the two key
fiduciary duties of an agent: First, It must not room itself in a situation where its own
benefits conflict with principal and second, it must not revenue from its situation at
the cost of the principal.44
It has also been held that where a fiduciary relationship exists between the contracting
parties, as in the case of solicitor or articled clerk entering into a contract with a client,
the solicitor or articled clerk cannot raise the defense of illegality in an action by the
client on the contract since the parties in such a case are not in pari delictor
Abdurahman v Field45. As the agent does not exceed their authority the agent will not
be personally liable to persons with whom they deals. Its shows that agent should act
only as an agent and everything they did was within the scope of fiduciary duty. The
essence of accord and satisfaction in the acceptance by the plaintiff of something is
place of their cause of action Tallerman & Co Pty Ltd v Nathans Merchandise
(Victoria) Pty Ltd46. A person who purports to do something as an agent impliedly
warrants they have already authority and is answerable for guarantee even through
with the authority has arrive at an end by reason of fact that they have no knowledge
or way of knowledge.
The major task of the constructive expectation has been in the area of breach of
fiduciary duty. As an example, where a trustee or person in a fiduciary relationship
obtains a benefit from their position such benefit will be regarded by law as being
held by that person as constructive trustee for the beneficiary Boardman v Phipps47.
Where an event misuses money in breach of a fiduciary duty, that party will be
regarded as constructive trustee in relation to those moneys.
A fiduciary relationship of faith and assurance occurs among partners, giving towards
to a fiduciary responsibility of disclosure to each other. At the time when the
circumstances upon which the relationship of BBC and Henry Lawson will end
depending upon the terms of the original contract of agency. It is no defense that the
agent acted innocently or in mistake. However, Henry Lawson is not liable if the other
party knew of the agents lack of authority: Weigall & Co v Runciman & Co. 48
Question 4:
Since 2001 there were strong views in the Queensland community that the law of
negligence were too ambiguous. In response, the federal government were pressurized
to address the unaffordability and unsustainability of public liability insurance issues.
45 (1987) 8 NSWLR 158
46 (1957) 98 CLR 93
47 (1967) 2 AC 46
48 (1916)85 LJKB 1187
10
LAWS20028 Term 2 2014
The legislations objective was to reform the law of civil liability for negligent acts
and for other purposes49 and to ensure that liability insurance was reasonably priced.
Important improvements were made to the law of negligence in relations with
personal injury damages.50
Civil Liability ACT 2003 (QLD) was amongst the many acts that were reformed in
2002. The Act is appropriate for any civil claim for damages in terms of tort or
contract. Tort law of negligence accentuated in Donoghue v Stevenson51 case provide
remedies to individuals who are injured or harmed by an act of another in areas that
the law recognizes including personal injury, economic loss and property damage.52
The Civil Liability Act narrowed the scope of potential liability by limiting it in
certain circumstances and reduce damages which may be awarded in negligence
personal injury actions.53 A maximum limit for general damages is capped at
$250,000, which is calculated with the Injury Scale Value (ISV) system. Injuries
pertaining to dust related incidents, exposure to tobacco products, intoxication,
criminal activity are excluded or restricted in the Act, limiting their entitlement to
claim for injury.54
Professionals are also protected in accordance to section 22, as long as their
professional behaviour is widely accepted by a significant number of respected
practitioners in the field as competent professional practice according to the Act. 55
However, when fellow professionals provide illogical opinions or views that are in
contradiction to the written law, the law will prevail. It also does not take into account
how prevalent or universal the conflicting opinions of fellow professionals are, they
could still be relied upon.56 As can be seen from the Rosenberg v Percival57 case, the
doctor carrying out his duty with generally accepted practices has not been found to
be negligent.
Prior to the Act, the High Court did not emphasize the standard of care in terms
contributory negligence, but has now addressed this issue by acknowledging how the
conduct of the plaintiff contributed to the incidence.58 The High Court now recognizes
the reduction of a plaintiffs damages up to 100% as a result of contributory
negligence on the defendants share.
The assumption of risk of the plaintiff was reassessed in the Act. The issue of
awareness of obvious risk no longer needs to be substantiated with burden of proof by
the plaintiff, unless it can be proven that the plaintiff was not warned of the inherent
49 Jonathan Wain, Civil Liability Reforms in Queensland (2003) TVed <
http://www.tved.net.au/PublicPapers/June_2003,_Lawyers_Education_Channel,_Civil_Liability_
Reforms_in_Queensland.html> at 27 August 2014.
50 Andrew Terry (eds), Business and the Law (5th ed, 2009) 175.
51 Donoghue v Stevenson, [1932] AC 562
54 Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), s 5
57 [2001] HCA 18; 205 CLR 434; 75 ALJR 734; 178 ALR 577
11
LAWS20028 Term 2 2014
risk, not of its precise nature, extent or manner.59 For example a recovering surgery
patient who does not heed the dietary warnings of a surgeon will be liable for side
effects that arises from consumption of these food, freeing the surgeon from damages
liability.
In conclusion, the Civil Liability Act provides better clarification in the protection of
professional in carrying out their services, and mitigate losses from fraudulent
claimants.
59 Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), ss 13, 14

12
LAWS20028 Term 2 2014
Bibliography:
ACL 2010, "Competition and Consumer Act 2010 Schedule 2, The Australian
Consumer Law", Commonwealth Consolidated Acts, Australasian Legal Information
Institute, viewed 27 August 2014
Arditi, J 2009, Industrial Relations: The Referral of Powers, viewed 19 August
2014,
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/publications.nsf/0/D0213A22DC6D
A011CA25763100201CF1/$File/Briefing%20Paper,%20Industrial%20Relations%20%20The%20Referral%20of%20Powers.pdf
Attorney General of Australia 2013, Remedies for Breach of Contract viewed 23
August 2014, http://www.ag.gov.au/Consultations/Documents/ReviewofAustraliancon
tractlaw/Remediesforbreachofcontract.pdf
Carvan, J 2009, Understanding the Australian Legal System (6th ed, 2009)
CCH Australia Limited 2010 Australian Master Fair Work Guide- Industrial
relations viewed 24 August 2014.
Davenport, S, & Parker, D 2012, Business And Law In Australia / Shayne Davenport,
David Parker, n.p.: Pyrmont, N.S.W. : Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia,
2012.
Dixon, N 2003, Reform of Negligence Law The Queensland Response: The draft
Civil Liability Bill 2002, Queensland Parliamentary Library.
Latimer, P 2011, Essential Australian Business Law / Paul Latimer, n.p.: Sydney :
CCH Australia Limited, 2011.
Maharaj, K 2012, 'LIMITS ON THE OPERATION OF EXCLUSION CLAUSES',
Alberta Law Review, 49, 3, pp. 635-654, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost,
viewed 22 August 2014.
Terry, A, & Giugni, D 2009, Business and the Law / Andrew Terry and Des Giugni,
n.p.: South Melbourne, Vic.: Cengage Learning Australia, c2009.
Turner, C, & Trone, J 2013, Australian Commercial Law / Clive Turner, John Trone,
n.p.: Sydney : Lawbook Co., 2013.
Webb, L 2009, Queensland Industrial Relations Power Referred to The
Commonwealth viewed 20 August 2014, http://www.corneyandlind.com.au/resourcecentre/employment/qld_ir_referred_to_commonwealth/
13

LAWS20028 Assignment s0256285

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

LAWS20028 Assignment s0256285

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

LAWS20028 Term 2 2014

Written Assessment Item 1

LAW20028: Business Law

Prepared and submitted by:

Tutor: Peter Boland

Written Law Assessment Laws20028 (Term 2, 2014)

LAWS20028 Term 2 2014

6 (1996) 187 CLR 416

Written Law Assessment Laws20028 (Term 2, 2014)

LAWS20028 Term 2 2014

11 Jessily Webb, Queensland Industrial Relations Power Referred to The

Written Law Assessment Laws20028 (Term 2, 2014)

LAWS20028 Term 2 2014

Written Law Assessment Laws20028 (Term 2, 2014)

LAWS20028 Term 2 2014

Paul Latimer, Australian Business Law (30th ed, 2011) 445-446

Written Law Assessment Laws20028 (Term 2, 2014)

LAWS20028 Term 2 2014

23 Paul Latimer, Australian Business Law (30th ed, 2011) 428

Written Law Assessment Laws20028 (Term 2, 2014)

LAWS20028 Term 2 2014

Written Law Assessment Laws20028 (Term 2, 2014)

LAWS20028 Term 2 2014

Written Law Assessment Laws20028 (Term 2, 2014)

LAWS20028 Term 2 2014

As rightly said in the case of Parker v MacKenna 42 No agent in the court of

Written Law Assessment Laws20028 (Term 2, 2014)

LAWS20028 Term 2 2014

Written Law Assessment Laws20028 (Term 2, 2014)

LAWS20028 Term 2 2014

Written Law Assessment Laws20028 (Term 2, 2014)

LAWS20028 Term 2 2014

59 Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), ss 13, 14

Written Law Assessment Laws20028 (Term 2, 2014)

LAWS20028 Term 2 2014

Written Law Assessment Laws20028 (Term 2, 2014)

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen