In my torts class i am completing an individual case study on the Australian Safeway Stores v Zaluzna. I have done the first section which is basically talking about the facts and the issues and outcome but i'm struggling with the second step. Below is the structure they want us to follow, and the assignment can be completed in dot point form.

This is the information that i need to explain in my assignment however im finding it very hard to identify what these are in my specific case:

Understanding why the dispute was resolved in the way it was. This step is not always straightforward. For example, you need to understand the legal rule before you can isolate the facts that are material to that rule. Often it is difficult, for a variety of reasons, to isolate this key legal finding, including that the principle for which the case is authority (the ratio) may not be clearly spelled out by the judge. You should identify:

the Legal Reasoning

What are the material facts of this case? (These are NOT just the general facts of the case. They are ONLY the key facts which determined the outcome).

What is the legal rule (ratio) of this case? (ie, the legal rule or principle stated in this case which determined its outcome.)

oState it as precisely as you can. This is not as simple as it sounds and it is usually only able to be determined after you have developed an understanding of the precedent cases.