In my torts class i am completing an individual case study on the Australian Safeway Stores v Zaluzna. I have done the first two sections which is basically talking about the facts and the issues and outcome but i'm struggling with the last part of the assignment step which is writing critically analyse and reflect on the case, consider facts such as is itmorally satisfying, legally convincing, does itEvidences a good public policy and is it persuasive and compellingly written, or dense and impenetrable.

I need help with answering each of these questions: regarding the Australian Safeway Stores v Zaluzna case

-Do you think this case was correctly decided at the time (in terms of the existing precedents)? This requires your opinion of the way previous cases were treated (was this a correct application of the relevant precedents) and how the judges synthesised those cases into the governing legal principle in this case.

-Do you find convincing the way in which the judge dealt with matters of morality, policy and principle that appear to underpin the decision?

-Where there legally available alternative decisions open to the judge (ie, whether a binding authority could have been distinguished, whether a particular judgment was simply wrong or should no longer be followed etc);