The questions to be answered are: Week 1 1) Explain the distinction between Exclusive Powers, Concurrent Powers and Residual Powers, which are outlined in the Australian Constitution. Give an example...

Legal Questions
Question 1
Australian constitution authorises Commonwealth Parliament for law making powers. And, separation of powers is concerned with division of powers to the states, the three divisions of powers are:
a) Exclusive powers: As the name indicates, under exclusive powers only Commonwealth is allowed or permitted to make laws, while states cannot. It includes making laws in several areas of national concern such as defence, cu
ency, immigration, national security and many more. Exclusive powers are part of specific powers, but they are termed as exclusive because states are not allowed or excluded from legislating or executing on them. Section 51 gives Commonwealth the power to implement and execute laws for the purpose of ‘peace, order and good government’ in the country. Only Commonwealth is allowed to make these laws and states are excluded from it (Gibson, 2017).
) Concu
ent powers: The main point of distinction with this set of law is its non-exclusive in nature and shared with the states. Commonwealth share this law making power with states, however, commonwealth also owns authority over these powers and can legislate it. Unlike exclusive powers, in which states are completely excluded from legislating on them, concu
ent powers fall in the preview of both Commonwealth and states, both are authorised to legislate it. Some examples of concu
ent powers are laws imposed by states in areas of ma
iage, divorce, and bankruptcy. However, in case of any kind of conflict between states and Commonwealth laws, section 109 is implemented which states that Commonwealth laws will always ove
ide over states (Clarke, Hooley, et.al. 2017).
c) Residual powers: Australian Constitution did not provide or mention this kind of law making power. These powers are retained by each state which is legislated depending on the needs and circumstances. States retain complete authority over these powers and not endorsed or shared its legislative authority with the Commonwealth. Some areas of residual powers are education, criminal laws and health, for example Victoria government implement its own set of laws regarding education, and health, as compared to other states (McKendrick & Liu, 2015).
Question 2
a) The issue is, does the defendant owes a duty of care to the plaintiff, being there is no contractual relationship’. The issue depends on the fact whether plaintiff has entered into contractual relationship with defendant in any manner.
Rule: According to the provisions of contract law, manufacturer owes the responsibility of ‘duty of care’ towards the final consumer, most commonly, in cases where it is not possible to inspect the goods between manufacturing and consumption. The manufacturer of the product, where he sells product in a form that it intends to reach and consume by the ultimate consumer, in the form where consumers do not have reasonable possibility of examining or testing the product, makes the manufacturer responsible for its quality and other aspects. Consumers buy the product in the belief that manufacturer adopted reasonable degree of care and diligence in preparing and offering products to them. If such product results in any kind of injury to the consumers’ life or property, they are entitled to take action against manufacturer (Gibson, 2017).
Application: Applying the provisions in the given case, it can be said that defendant owes duty of care toward plaintiff, no matter, whether there is formal contract between them. The manufacturers of potato chips which are sold in the form of packets are not possible to inspect and test at the time of purchasing. Therefore, manufacturer owes ‘duty of care’ in packing and selling potato chips to the consumer, not causing any negative effect on their health. The product quality, features and ingredients should be of utmost quality, whether it is purchased directly from manufacturer or through any other channel, including vending machine (Carter, 2013).
A case law titled, ‘Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]’ is based on doctrine of negligence in where Donoghue’s friend ordered ginger beer drink at a café, which purchased it from manufacturer named Stevenson. The ginger beer was in a dark bottle, contents are not visible from outside. After consuming half of the drink, Donoghue’s friend poured it in the glass and found remains of snail in it. On the basis, Donoghue’s friend sued manufacturer, and, her claim was successful, on the ground that manufacturer owes ‘duty of care’ towards final consumer, no matter, whether he himself...