Part 2: Topic questions

You must choose three (3) of the following topic questions and answer.

Each of the three questions chosen must be from a different topic. 

Topic 2 Discussion Question 1 - Doctrine of precedent

Is it fair to citizens that courts follow the decisions of previous judges in superior courts?  Why or why not?  Justify your position

Topic 2 Discussion Question 2 - Mabo (No 2)

What are the important differences between the colonisation of the Australia and that of other places (such as Canada, India, New Zealand, and Jamaica)? Why as a result was the 1992 Mabo (No 2) case so important to indigenous Australians?

Topic 2 Discussion Question 3 - Mediation

Should mediation be compulsory for all civil disputes? Give arguments for and against this assertion.

Topic 3 Discussion Question 1 - Contract justification

Are contracts truly a "meeting of the minds"? Discuss the difficulties with this as a foundation of contract law.

Topic 3 Discussion Question 2 - Sufficient consideration

"A peppercorn is sufficient consideration." Does this meet the demand of justice and/or fairness? Why or why not?  Justify your position

Topic 3 Discussion Question 3 - Formality

Contrast formal contracts with other types of agreements. Are there any indicia or defining qualities to differentiate them?

Topic 4 Discussion Question 1 - Onerous terms

Why is notice of onerous terms required even when one party has signed a written contract? Does this rule undermine the rule in L'Estrange v F Graucob Ltd [1934] 2 KB 394?

Topic 4 Discussion Question 2 - Exclusion clauses

Do you think exclusion clauses should be construed according to the power relationship that the parties have? Is this the role of the courts or should it be left to Parliament? Why or why not? Justify your position.

Topic 4 Discussion Question 3 - Objective intention

Why do you think that contracts with ambiguity or uncertainty are read consistently with the objective intention of the parties? Is this fair if neither party's actual intention was recorded in the instrument? 

Topic 5 Discussion Question 1 - Mistake and equity

Why do you think the UK court in Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris (International) Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1407 (followed in Australia Estates Pty Ltd v Cairns City Council [2005] QCA 328) found that equity should not provide a remedy for common ...

Topic 5 Discussion Question 2 - Misrepresentation and the ACL

Why is the standard for proving misrepresentation at common law higher than proving misleading and deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law? Should these be merged into one cause of action? Justify your position

Topic 5 Discussion Question 3 - Unlawful transactions

Should contracts that are "illegal" still have some system for determining this before the matter proceeds? How might this work?

Topic 6 Discussion Question 1 - Purpose of damages

What are the purpose of damages in contract? How are they different from damages in tort? Can they be construed as the same thing?

Topic 6 Discussion Question 2 - Common sense in causation

Why does the test for causation in contract law have a "common sense" proviso but the same test in tort does not? Should "common sense" be a feature of other areas of contract law?

Topic 6 Discussion Question 3 - Specific performance

Do you this that specific performance should exist at all in our legal system? Why or why not? Justify your position

Topic 7 Discussion Question 1 - Exclusion clauses in the ACL

Why are consumer guarantees unable to be excluded from some transactions under the Australian Consumer Law? Do you think this is good law? Justify your position

Topic 7 Discussion Question 2 - Businesses as consumers in the ACL

Why are some business-to-business transactions covered under the consumer guarantees? Is it fair that businesses get the same protection as non-business consumers? Why or why not? Justify your position

Topic 7 Discussion Question 3 - Unconscionable transactions in the ACL

Why do you think Parliament intended the definition of "unconscionable' in the general law to be preserved in section 20 of the Australian Consumer Law? Why is this different in section 21?