The question is highly related to the course of Legal Reasoning & the Common Law System

(18) You are a single judge in the NSW Supreme Court, and you are deciding a case under uniform companies legislation enacted throughout all States/Territories in Australia. The parties have argued a number of relevant precedents before you, as follows: Nice Pty Ltd v Natural Pty Ltd (1975) a ruling of the Victorian Supreme Court Full Court Hearts Pty Ltd v Spades Pty Ltd (1984) a ruling of the Full Federal Court which considered Nice to be 'plamly wrong' Electrical Pty Ltd v Telecommunications Pty Ltd (1986) where the NSW District Court applied Nice Cool Pty Ltd v Warm Pty Ltd (1995) where the High Court of Australia, in obiter dicta, preferred the reasoning in Hearts and disapproved of Electrical Coffee Pty Ltd v Tea Pty Ltd (2005) where a single judge of the NSW Supreme Court applied Nice and distinguished Cool on the facts Smart Pty Ltd v Dull Pty Ltd (2011) a decision of the UK House of Lords which strongly endorsed and applied the High Court's reasoning in Cool. Which of the following statements is correct: (a) The decision in Coffee is binding upon you. (b) The decision in Electrical is binding upon you. (c) The reasoning in Cool is binding upon you. (d) The decision in Smart is the most persuasive. (e) The decision in Hearts is the most persuasive. Explain your choice of answer in Q18 (4 marks)