Part - A)

Topic: Negligence ( Based on Civil Liability Act (NSW); Australian cases; and Australian law)

Case Details:

On 3 April 2020, Madeline Burnett placed an advertisement in the Trading Post, a specialist

newspaper, advertising a garage sale to be held at her home in the weekend of 5-6 April 2020.

Madeline has previous experience in conducting garage sales. Such activities are common in the

suburbs of Adelaide, where Madeline's home was situated, and elsewhere throughout Australia.

The first day of the garage sale, 5 April 2020, started out clear and sunny. Madeline's property

included a concrete driveway extending from a carport annexed to the house to the public footpath

and road. The driveway comprised sections of concrete joined in an expansion joint which extended

throughout its length. Madeline placed a variety of domestic articles for sale on a trestle table

situated on the southern side of the driveway close to the carport. Prospective purchasers had no

alternative but to approach the goods by walking over the driveway. Madeline expected a volume of

pedestrian traffic to attend the sale. She knew, or ought reasonably to have known, of the disparity

in the levels of the adjoining concrete slabs in the forecourt of her home.

Darcie entered Madeline's premises at about 8:40 a.m. wearing slip-on shoes. She walked towards

the trestle table. (To do this), she had to cross the divide in the concrete slabs. An object caught her

eye, presumably one of the garden or other items for sale on the trestle table. At that point, her right

foot rolled on the elevation of one concrete slab as it adjoined the adjacent slab. Darcie, a woman

then aged 53, fell towards the ground, touching it but then regaining her footing. In the course of this

motion, she felt a crack in her right foot. This was later diagnosed as having caused a fracture.

Darcie sued Madeline in the Magistrates Court of South Australia, claiming damages for negligence.

Using legal principles and rules learned on Negligence, advise Darcie on whether her case against

Madeleine will be successful.

Part - B)

Topic: Corporations Law (Australia)

Bluff Solutions Pty Ltd ("Bluff") owns 50% of the shares of Life Electronics ("Life Electronics") Pty

Ltd. Last year, Bluff was contacted by Alphacoms Pty Ltd ("Alphacoms"), which owns the other 50%

of bluff. Alphacoms wanted to invest a large sum of money in Life Electronics, to allow it to research

and develop a potentially valuable software application. The directors of Bluff at the time hired a

team of consultants, which included a software applications expert, and instructed them to research

the technical aspects of the proposed application and future possibilities involving the technology.

The team of consultants worked for three months researching for and writing the report. The report

they presented to Bluff's directors showed that the proposed investment in the software application

could very likely prove successful. Jerry Robinson is one of Bluff's directors. He holds a Masters of

Computer Programming degree from a well-known university. Jerry's fellow directors asked him

about the consultants' positive projections. Jerry told them that the report is accurate. In reality

though, some of the information in the report was not well-researched and supported by up to date

data. As a result, when Bluff's directors rely on the report and invest the company's money in the

new software application, the investment will not be as lucrative as the consultants predicted.

Citing specific common law and Corporations Act directors duties, identifies that

whether the directors of Bluff Solutions Pty Ltd (or any of them) breached their duty of care?