Mary v Peter
Given that Mary was injured by Peters’ act, is he solely liable for the accident?
* In this case, we have to look at the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) to determine who was negligent and in specific, we use s 5B(1), s 5B(2) and s 5R of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW); s 5B(1) for the reasonable foreseeability test, s 5B(2) for determining if the standard of reasonable care has been breached and s 5R for contributory negligence. * Where both the parties seem to have been negligent, it is important to determine who is more at fault and for this purpose we need to use the ‘but for’ test as in the case of Cork v Kirby Maclean  2 ALL ER 402. * The application of s 5R of the Civil …show more content…
Section 5R of Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) states that the plaintiff should take reasonable care to avoid harm to themselves and Sam failed to do that. A reasonable person would not leave meat amounting to such a substantial amount of $5000 in a faulty refrigerator as he should have foreseen that it will go bad if the repairer is delayed. Hence, he should have found another refrigerator until the faulty one is repaired and cleared for use again.
The court is likely to find that, Sam has violated s 5R of Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), and he is solely responsible for his loss.
Bob v Mike
Offeror = Mike Offeree = Bob
Is Mike liable for the invoice?
* Here, we need to assess if there was a contract in existence at the time Bob sent the computers to Mike. * A similar case we need to look at is the case of Hyde v Wrench  49 ER 132.
In the case of Hyde v Wrench  49 ER 132, Hyde made an offer to sell his land to Wrench at £1000 to which Wrench responded by offering to buy it for £950. Hyde rejected this offer and Wrench contacted Hyde saying that he will buy the land for the