Page 1 XXXXXXXXXXKaplan Business School Assessment Outline Assessment 2...

Question

Page 1 XXXXXXXXXXKaplan Business School Assessment Outline

Assessment 2 Information
Subject Code: BUS107
Subject Name: Commercial Law
Assessment Title: Assignment
Assessment Type: Assignment
Choose an item.: 1,200 Words (+/-10%)
Weighting: 40 %
Total Marks: 40
Submission: Via Turnitin
Due Date: Week 10
.
Assessment Description

• There will be a webinar to assist you with preparing this assignment. Watch out for the
webinar time and date details to be posted in the Subject Announcements.
• This assignment covers the Law of Torts (Week 5).

• You will need to identify the issues in the question, cite the relevant rules applicable to the issues,
explain the application of the rules to the facts/situation in the problem and draw a conclusion as to
the best advice for the person/s you are providing advice (IRAC).
Assessment Problem Based Question

Peter is a real estate developer. He develops residential apartment complexes in the Wollongong local
area. He purchases a large block of land for $2 million and plans to build a large apartment complex on
the block at a considerable profit. But Wollongong Council denies his development application on the
asis of a road widening proposal that will substantially reduce the size of the block. This road widening
proposal reduces the value of the block of Peter’s land to $1 million.
Peter reads the council certificate he obtained from Wollongong Council. If the block of land had been
subject to a road widening proposal then it should have been disclosed by Wollongong Council in the
certificate. There is no such disclosure in the certificate. As Peter didn’t bother to read the certificate
efore he purchased the land, he is relieved to find the council has made this mistake. He secretly knows
that if Wollongong Council had been careful and included the road widening disclosure in the certificate,
he would not have seen it and gone ahead with the land purchase anyway.
Peter now wants to sue Wollongong Council in negligence for economic loss. Wollongong Council claims
that negligence only applies to physical actions, not written words, and is only applicable to physical
damage to people or their property, not economic loss.
Advise Peter.
Page 2 XXXXXXXXXXKaplan Business School Assessment Outline

Important Study Information

Academic Integrity Policy

KBS values academic integrity. All students must understand the meaning and consequences
of cheating, plagiarism and other academic offences under the Academic Integrity and Conduct
Policy.

What is academic integrity and misconduct?
What are the penalties for academic misconduct?
What are the late penalties?
How can I appeal my grade?

Click here for answers to these questions:
http:
www.kbs.edu.au/cu
ent-students/student-policies/.

Word Limits for Written Assessments

Submissions that exceed the word limit by more than 10% will cease to be marked from the point
at which that limit is exceeded.

Study Assistance

Students may seek study assistance from their local Academic Learning Advisor or refer to the
esources on the MyKBS Academic Success Centre page. Click here for this information.
http:
www.kbs.edu.au/cu
ent-students/student-policies
https:
elearning.kbs.edu.au/course/view.php?id=1481

bus107t22019assessment2outline-1-vt2aphzq.pdf

Debbani · Accepted Answer

Tortious liability
	Tortious liability	negligence
	
	
Table of Contents
Issue	2
Rule of Law	2
Application and Analysis	2
Conclusion	5
References	6
Issue
Whether P can sue WC for the negligent action giving rise to economic loss
Rule of Law
Pure economic loss under the Law of Negligence is considered as the financial damage which is suffered by one party based on the negligent act so done by another party and is not necessarily accompanied by any damage to any physical or property.
Application and Analysis
In the instant facts of the case, Peter (P) being the real estate developer wanted to build a large apartment on the block, which was denied by Wollongong Council (WC) based on the proposal to widen the road thereby reducing the value of P’s land. Again, WC did not disclose the matter before P purchased the land. P based on the above mistake by WC wants to sue the later for economic loss, where WC contends differently. 
In the above scenario, the plaintiff P being the estate developer suffered no physical injury and neither any damage is caused to the property, but the loss is definitely sustained by P, so in here the loss so suffered by P concerns only the pure economic loss, and is entirely based on the negligence on the part of the defendant that is in here WC. Again, to establish the negligence, the Law prescribes certain criteria to be fulfilled, firstly there must be a duty owed as was held in case of (Wyong Shire Council v Shirt, 1980), secondly that owed duty must have been breached as was held in decisions of (Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil, 2000), (Strong v Woolworths, 2012) and (Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak; Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Bou Najem, 2009), thirdly the breach is the only cause or the reason for the loss suffered by the plaintiff. So, in these circumstances where the facts which gives rise to lack of physical injury or that of the property damage, then the requirement is pretty much more than just foreseeability or proximity as was held in (Overseas Tankership Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering CO Ltd , 1966) which was established in case of (Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co or Wagon Mound (No. 2), 1966), is often looked in to for establishing the negligence on the part of the tort feasor.

Page 1 XXXXXXXXXXKaplan Business School Assessment Outline Assessment 2 Information Subject Code: BUS107 Subject Name: Commercial Law Assessment Title: Assignment Assessment Type: Assignment Choose an...

Solution

Answer To This Question Is Available To Download

Related Questions & Answers

Submit New Assignment