Malfatron Posted May 27, 2020 Share Posted May 27, 2020 the guy in the middle is matts though. whats he doing here? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matts4313 Posted May 27, 2020 Share Posted May 27, 2020 2 minutes ago, Shady Slim said: THE DREAMingTEAM fixed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matts4313 Posted May 27, 2020 Share Posted May 27, 2020 2 minutes ago, Malfatron said: Cockring I dont think thats his name Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swoosh Posted May 27, 2020 Share Posted May 27, 2020 1 minute ago, Malfatron said: the guy in the middle is matts though. whats he doing here? we’re always helping him get out of his f ups 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malfatron Posted May 27, 2020 Share Posted May 27, 2020 3 minutes ago, Shady Slim said: come one come all for the epic bought of a generation tribe 2twins1tribe GAGS fixe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Slim Posted May 27, 2020 Author Share Posted May 27, 2020 Greg works for a company and is injured on the job for their negligence. He goes to the doctor to get treatment, and he is treated negligently and suffers further harm. The doctor says that the company should be liable for all the injury, the company says they should be only liable for the injury on the worksite. Who’s right? Both tribes said it was the doctor. The doctor is – the company is responsible for the entirety of the harm including the medical negligence of the doctor, the case is Mahony v J Kruschich (Demolitions) as pointed out by self proclaimed torts expert @mission27 the company is joint and severally liable meaning they are liable for the entirety of the harm - though they could seek contribution later on from the doctor for part of the damages, it is their responsibility to, and greg can if he wants just sue the company for the lot 1-1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Slim Posted May 27, 2020 Author Share Posted May 27, 2020 In Australia, the constitution says if you are convicted of certain felonies you can not be eligible for the Parliament. Greg runs for the Australian Senate and wins, though he was convicted of the crime of larceny, being one such offense, pre-election. He was not yet sentenced at the time of the election. Afterwards, while in the Senate, Greg’s appealed this and the conviction was annulled. Is he an Eligible Senator? Both tribes said that he's not. No, he is not, he’s disqualified from the Senate as he was ineligible at the time of his election even though the conviction was later wiped, the case is Re Culleton (No 2) annulment operates here prospectively so he was never considered eligible. interestingly he was replaced by the next guy on the senate ticket who was his brother in law 2-2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matts4313 Posted May 27, 2020 Share Posted May 27, 2020 1 minute ago, swoosh said: we’re always helping him get out of his f ups If the player dont fit We make him quit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Slim Posted May 27, 2020 Author Share Posted May 27, 2020 The government puts in place a law that says Greg and only Greg, who is in jail, must stay there even after his sentence expires for the protection of the community, as he has sent threatening letters to the custodian of his children while in jail. Greg challenges this. Does he get let out? Both tribes said that he does.. Yes, he does; the parliament can not make a bill of attainder (a bill that targets specific people as only the judiciary can adjudge guilt), the case is Kable v DPP 3-3 Archbishop Greg is tired of his role with the church, and retires. He sues them for unpaid leave because of the time he spent at the church. The church says that Greg’s position was not a “job”, as such, and they don’t have to pay any entitlements, as there is no employment contract – does he get paid or? Both tribes said that he does. Greg, because of the principles of intention to create legal relations which encompass things such as the subject matter of agreement and the status of the parties to the agreement that is in question, the case is Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA just as an aside this is one of my favourite cases, and it also establishes the standards for intention to create legal relations for australian contracts 4-4 Greg goes on a cruise which sinks, and sues the ship provider for total failure of consideration (he did not get to enjoy the full cruise as it sunk!). Does he get the money back for the ticket? Both sides said a partial refund.. Partial – it is only total failure of consideration when absolutely zero of the consideration is rendered, and so as long as he got one second of cruise time he can not sure for his money back for the cruise, the case is Baltic Shipping Co v Dillon (Mikhail Lermontov) this is another fun one and yeah, because she got the benefit of the first ten days of the cruise it wasn't total 5-5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malfatron Posted May 27, 2020 Share Posted May 27, 2020 dont choke now, Gags. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted May 27, 2020 Share Posted May 27, 2020 If there’s a tie I am going to break the law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Slim Posted May 27, 2020 Author Share Posted May 27, 2020 Electricity workers were doing work on a manhole and knocked off, and left some signs up to caution the passers by of the work – the manhole was left uncovered. Greg, blind, and as such not able to read the warnings, falls in and is hurt. The board for of the electricity company argues that Greg’s blindness means that he’s not a “normal person”, and so it wouldn’t be a fair stance to extend their duty of care to blind people such as Greg. How successful is this defense? 2T1T said that it was succesful. D2S said it was not. It is not – it is said that blind people are a reasonably foreseeable class of person and so the duty of care to not injure people from their worksite naturally extends to them too. The case is Haley v London Electricity Board i'd like to note that @gopherwrestler got this on his own on D1 but 2T1T seemingly forgot this and decided to diverge from his answer to great fault D2S leads it 6-5 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swoosh Posted May 27, 2020 Share Posted May 27, 2020 damn, my lawyers hate blind people apparently. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mission27 Posted May 27, 2020 Share Posted May 27, 2020 8 minutes ago, Shady Slim said: as pointed out by self proclaimed torts expert @mission27 the company is joint and severally liable meaning they are liable for the entirety of the harm - though they could seek contribution later on from the doctor for part of the damages, it is their responsibility to, and greg can if he wants just sue the company for the lot Self proclaimed but not inaccurately so tbh 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mission27 Posted May 27, 2020 Share Posted May 27, 2020 2 minutes ago, Shady Slim said: Electricity workers were doing work on a manhole and knocked off, and left some signs up to caution the passers by of the work – the manhole was left uncovered. Greg, blind, and as such not able to read the warnings, falls in and is hurt. The board for of the electricity company argues that Greg’s blindness means that he’s not a “normal person”, and so it wouldn’t be a fair stance to extend their duty of care to blind people such as Greg. How successful is this defense? 2T1T said that it was succesful. D2S said it was not. It is not – it is said that blind people are a reasonably foreseeable class of person and so the duty of care to not injure people from their worksite naturally extends to them too. The case is Haley v London Electricity Board i'd like to note that @gopherwrestler got this on his own on D1 but 2T1T seemingly forgot this and decided to diverge from his answer to great fault D2S leads it 6-5 Does this apply to color blind as well @FinneasGage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.