Australian Survivor!! Now - Tribal!! Final!! Congratulations to our Sole Survivor - Outpost31!!

[Pickle Rick]

1 minute ago, The Orca said:

I got more money this way. It is what he would have wanted 

Greg is dead though.  At least we can party on his dime bc the dude couldnt control himself 

[Malfatron]

if we would have tied again....zombie greg!

Edited May 29, 2020 by Malfatron

[mission27]

4 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

Unlike you scrubs - we were unanimous. Suck it Swoosh. 

Def google'd then or just got lucky because this is not the law in any other country lol

[Matts4313]

1 minute ago, Whicker said:

Our team argued that it would have failed because keeping the keys would be theft. Bad argument was bad. 

Our team argued it failed because in the AU there is no standard to monitor how drunk patrons are.

@Ragnarok was crucial;  that said I am proud of the team the last ~24 hours. We had just about everyone asking questions and pitching in. Rags probably could have done it on his own, but it was nice to see all the different angles people attacked these questions with. 

[MWil23]

2 minutes ago, Malfatron said:

I mean, we still have everyone we started with

Downside:

You still have everyone you started with 

[bcb1213]

Can't believe they thought Australia had drinking rules tbh 

[Wyld Stallyns]

Just now, mission27 said:

Def google'd then or just got lucky because this is not the law in any other country lol

No google, we asked the right questions apparently 

[Ragnarok]

Dram shop laws are the group of laws in the US that allow an establishment to be liable for over serving.  

I asked shady if they had dram shop laws and he said no.  Then we asked fact finding questions to bolster that.

That's how we got our answer.  No googling needed.

[Matts4313]

1 minute ago, mission27 said:

Def google'd then or just got lucky because this is not the law in any other country lol

Or we are just smarter than you guys? The very first question Rags asked was about Dram Shop Laws. The very first question I asked was at what limit will they cut you off. 

Once Shady answered, we were pretty much sure that the inn was not liable. 

[swoosh]

I feel ****ty for being wrong, but I take solace in knowing the other side’s main argument was keeping the keys would be considered theft.

proud of everyone in the tribe for the effort they gave and you hate to lose it like this, but just thankful it’s over. also thankful for knowing we were able to land a free eviction. we’re still golden.

good work @Matts4313 and @Ragnarok

[mission27]

5 minutes ago, swoosh said:

I feel ****ty for being wrong, but I take solace in knowing the other side’s main argument was keeping the keys would be considered theft.

 

Have faith in your smugness tbh

[Ragnarok]

15 minutes ago, mission27 said:

Def google'd then or just got lucky because this is not the law in any other country lol

Neither one.  

[bcb1213]

5 minutes ago, swoosh said:

I feel ****ty for being wrong, but I take solace in knowing the other side’s main argument was keeping the keys would be considered theft.

proud of everyone in the tribe for the effort they gave and you hate to lose it like this, but just thankful it’s over. also thankful for knowing we were able to land a free eviction. we’re still golden.

good work @Matts4313 and @Ragnarok

You realize Whicker was talking about your team right 

[swoosh]

4 minutes ago, bcb1213 said:

You realize Whicker was talking about your team right 

yes, I meant other side as in those in our tribe who wanted failed.

[mission27]

21 minutes ago, Ragnarok said:

Dram shop laws are the group of laws in the US that allow an establishment to be liable for over serving.  

I asked shady if they had dram shop laws and he said no.  Then we asked fact finding questions to bolster that.

That's how we got our answer.  No googling needed.

Tbh I think it could be argued Shady gave you false info that led to your correct answer, although you could argue semantics.  I also think he gave us false info that led to our incorrect answer.

Whether they call them dram shop laws or not, this is the law in Queensland as referenced in the case:

Quote

 

In Queensland the Liquor Act makes it an offence on licensed premises to:

• sell/supply/provide liquor to an unduly intoxicated patron
• allow another person to supply an unduly intoxicated patron with liquor
• allow an unduly intoxicated patron to consume liquor.

Which is substantively the same as dram shop laws tbh.  

The court nonetheless found that

Quote

The fact that legislation compels publicans not to serve customers who are apparently drunk does not make the introduction of a civil duty of care defined by reference to those expressions any more workable or attractive. 

Basically there is a dram shop law but the court doesn't think using this law as the basis for a duty of care under torts is workable and they are declining to recognize such a duty of care.  Which tbh, is a pretty ridiculous ruling.  If someone does something illegal that harms you, how can they be found to not have any liability? 

HOWEVER... and this is where I have a bone to pick with @Shady Slim... I believe in coming to this ruling the court was essentially saying the duty of care does not exist because its not the responsibility of the bar tender to decide if the person is drunk if they dont appear drunk.  And in fact the Liquor Act of 1992 in Queensland says as follows:

 

We did ask Shady whether someone needed to be visibly drunk to be considered overserved under the laws in place and were told no.  Which doesn't appear to me to be the case, based on the Liquor Act referenced in the courts decision. 

Ultimately I'm ok w it because we have a free eviction but I do think we were robbed. @swoosh @TLO

 

 

Edited May 29, 2020 by mission27