Woollen Mills Pty Ltd vs Commonwealth †MyAssignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about the Woollen Mills Pty Ltd vs Commonwealth. Answer: Introduction: According to the facts of the case it is a case of breach of duty of care under the law of tort. A breach of duty cause when it has been found that the defendant has found to be failure to exercise the duty of care towards the defendant. Due to the negligence towards the duty of care which causes by the defendant causes damages to the plaintiff. Balfour v. Attorney General [1991] is one of the famous case of Australia where a damage has been caused to the plaintiff by the defendant due to the failure of duty of care of proximity causes. Under the law of tort it is a case of breach of duty of care. Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] is a case where plaintiff has found damages of heath issues due to the negligence which has been caused by the defendant while he served a beer bottle with a decomposed snail in it. As per the fact of the case Ellen went to the office of the council officer for the assurance of him if it will be fine to take the property for her meditation business. However he told that everything will be finned but it causes damages to her and her business. As a council office it was his duty to provides every information to the clients which is the duty of him. The council officer has owned the duty of care towards Ellen but he failed to exercise the duty of care which causes the breach of duty of care towards Ellen. Therefore he is liable for the damages which she suffered. According to the contract law, a contract has been formed between two or more that two parties. When a contract formed it follows various elements which include offer and acceptance, capacity of contract, consideration, legal intention and certainty between the parties. When the parties failed to meet the elements of the contract it had been breached legal binding of the contract. Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth High Court of Australia (1954) is one of example of breach of the contract. In this case the court has stated that the parties of the contract have failed to form a legally binding contract due to the failure of exercise the terms of consideration, condition and legal intention. Therefore the formation of the contract has become invalid for the breach of the terms of the contracts. The parties are bound to follow the five elements when they are forming a legally valid contract. One party will make the offer and other one will accept it. The consideration will set the contract where it will consider the exchange of values. The sound mind people only form the contract. The legal intention is necessary along with the certainty. According to the facts when Ellen took the property for her meditation business she has informed the landlord about her requirement of having a clam environment for running the business. However due to the renovation work to the next door it creates nuisance and disturbance to her business. The disturbances cause several damages to her. The clients are not able to concentrate of the meditation and she suffered mental illness. Therefore according to the terms of the contract the land lord has failed to form a contract which consists of all consideration, legal intention and certainty. A breach of contract has been occurring by the landlord who causes damages to her. The contributory negligence is one of the part of the negligence under the tort law where defendant can use it as defense where the liability of the damages has caused by him to the plaintiff. According to the terms of the contributory negligence defendant can share the liability of damages with the plaintiff where plaintiff has suffered the damages. The liabilities of the damages are applicable for both of them. Podrebersek v Australian Iron and Steel [1985] is a case of contributory negligence where court has found the liabilities of damages by both of the plaintiff and defendant due to the negligence. In the case of Bankstown Foundry Pty Ltd v Braistina [1986] court found that the plaintiff has suffered several damages by the defendant due to acts of negligence but the liabilities of damages lied upon to both of plaintiff and defendant. As per the facts of the case the council officer has owned a duty of care towards his clients. When Ellen asked for his suggestions about the lease property before she make the agreement he has stated not to worry about without any enquiries. However Ellen is equally liable in this case because without the appropriate consideration and determination from the landlord she made the lease agreement. It causes several damages to her and the meditation business. Due to the renovation process to the next door of her business property created disturbances to the clients where they are not able to concentrate on the meditation process. It is an act of contributory negligence by both Ellen and the council officer. In this case Ellen is the ultimate sufferer who faced the damages which causes mental illness and disturbance to the clients. Though she changes the shift timing it still made the noise of construction. Conclusion Due to the liability of Ellen and Council officer it can be concluded that if she claimed compensation from him then partly she will also face the burden of liabilities. Reference Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth High Court of Australia (1954) 92 CLR 424 Balfour v. Attorney General [1991] 519 Bankstown Foundry Pty Ltd v Braistina [1986] HCA 20 Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 Podrebersek v Australian Iron and Steel [1985] HCA 34