1. Jennifer aged 25 years is the granddaughter of Betty who lives by herself in Mount Gambier. Jennifer has just completed a degree in Psychology at the University of South Australia. Betty promises Jennifer that if she leaves Adelaide and moves to Mount Gambier to live with her she will transfer her house into Jennifer’s name. Jennifer leaves her mum and dad, boyfriend and a job she held at the Service to Youth Council. She arrives in Mount Gambier and cannot find any work as a psychologist but she obtains work part time as a waitress in a café. Betty refuses to honour her promise regarding transferring the house to Jennifer who wants to sue her grandmother for breach of contract. Advise Jennifer.
2. On 1 February 2015 Sanche writes to Richard offering to sell him his 1974 Holden Monaro for $60,000, ‘the offer will remain open until 5pm on 3 February 2015’. Richard receives the letter at 10 am on 3 February and tries immediately to phone Sanche. He does not answer and Richard leaves a message on his Message Bank saying he was interested in buying the Monaro but was only willing to pay $55,000. At 10.30 am the same morning, Richard changes his mind about how much he is willing to pay for the car. He sends an email to Sanche saying, ‘Disregard, my earlier phone message. I accept your offer to sell your 1974 Monaro car for $60,000’. Sanche does not check his email at all on the 3 February but does check his phone Message Bank. He listens to the voice message from Richard and immediately sells the petrol to Bradley who he has also been negotiating with. On 4 February at 9 am he opens his emails and reads Richard’s message. Advise the parties.
3. Kevin is an antique dealer. He appoints Ravi to sell furniture on his behalf. One of the items Kevin wants sold is a twelve seater oak dining table. He instructs Ravi that he will not accept less than $7,000 for the table. Ravi places an advertisement in a local newspaper advertising the table for $7,000. Theresa responds to the advertisement. She has recently renovated a period home and the table would be perfect for the formal dining room. Theresa offers Ravi $6,500 which Ravi promptly accepts. All along, Theresa is unaware that Kevin is the owner of the table. When she takes delivery of the table there is large scratch on the top of the table. Theresa is furious and advises Ravi that she does not want the table now that it is not in the condition it was in when she inspected it previously. Ravi advises her that it is not his problem because he is not the owner of the table. Advise the parties.
4. Trevor composes music on his computer using a software program called ‘Sibelius’. He sometimes plays music he has composed to his friends before they are released for sale. After Trevor has composed music he sends it to a distributor who sells it in Europe. Trevor plays an unreleased composition to a group of friends including Declan. After hearing this composition, Declan goes home and composes a piece of music that sounds virtually identical to Trevor’s, particularly the chorus. Declan then sends it to a distributor who releases a CD in Europe. It is a huge hit and Declan makes a large amount of money from CD sales. Trevor is furious and accuses Declan of stealing his composition. Advise the parties.
5. Clare runs a very successful hairdressing business on Unley Road in Adelaide. It has taken her five years to build up the business. She decides to sell the business and enters into a contract of sale with Maddie. There is a clause in the contract that states that: ‘Clare will not for a period of ten years from the date of this agreement set up any business in Adelaide’. The contract of sale is finalised and Maddie takes over the business. Clare wants to operate another business and decides to open a café on King William Road, Hyde Park. Approximately one year after selling her hairdressing business she opens her new café. A lot of her old customers are now regulars at the new café. Maddie is outraged and claims that Clare is in breach of her contract for the sale of the hairdressing business. Advise the parties.
In her work, Ethical Issues in Suicide, Margaret Pabst Battin endeavors to decide whether suicide can be normal by utilizing various criteria. I trust that two of her criteria can be debilitated. While I concur that suicide can be reasonable, I think she neglects to look at basic indicates that could lead the nonsensicalness of murdering oneself. I will contend that suicide can be viewed as levelheaded because of the human's ability to settle on their own decisions and their rights over their own particular body. Nonetheless, if the individual conferring the demonstration are not simply the ones settling on the choice, at that point suicide in the two cases ought to be resolved silly since it doesn't include the person's reasoning procedure. Battin states that sane suicide is normally characterized as "â€¦the individual isn't crazy, in which the choice is come to in healthy, undeceived form, and in which the decision made is certainly not an absurd thing for that person to do," (132). Individuals decide suicide to be something a man would sensibly and intentionally do. Battin thinks of five criteria, which fall into two gatherings: the initial three being non-debilitation criteria and the last two being fulfillment of interests, both which could be utilized to assess different goes about also (132). It is by all accounts in view of the human's consistent reasoning procedure and their physical and enthusiastic needs. The capacity to reason is the primary rule in the rundown, in which most believe is that the individual can think of various sensible reasons and the individual can assess the results of the conclusion (Battin 133). In any case, there are botches that individuals confer while demonstrating unreasonableness of suicide as Battin states it is felt that individuals ought to have the capacity to foresee the outcomes after suicide if the demonstration itself ought to be viewed as discerning (133). Battin is clarifying that people must have the capacity to make sense of what might or could happen in the event that they slaughter themselves in a perspective. Notwithstanding, she proclaims that numerous individuals don't really observe these outcomes effectively (Battin 134). Battin brings up that individuals don't envision their passings effectively (Shneidman and Farberow; Nagel, refered to in Battin 1995, 134) or are centered around influencing the other individuals in their lives in a dyadic suicide (Shneidman, refered to in Battin 1995, 134). This would demonstrate that suicides could be balanced on the grounds that if people couldn't see the results of their passings, at that point the contention about outcomes would be demonstrate false. Battin goes ahead to express that suicides in light of religion, to proceed with life and encounters after death, and notoriety, to be found especially after death, are sane on the grounds that it is difficult to demonstrate capacity to reason because of blunder in thinking (Battin 134-135). By and large, I trust that Battin is expressing that objective suicide includes an unmistakable personality and broad manner of thinking. Ampleness of data is another measure where it is expected that numerous suicides can't meet this to be viewed as objective (Battin 137). It is expected that insufficiency is individuals conferring suicide based of mixed up data, for example, a person with a terminal ailment submitting suicide based off of a doctor's outward appearances, and can include the individual's musings about present and future outcomes (Battin 137). This would imply that individuals would not be balanced in submitting suicide since they don't have the correct data to base it off of. In any case, Battin claims that you can't decide madness of a suicide if there was no chance conceivable of the individual knowing; it must be judged if there was no endeavor to get it from solid sources (Battin 137-138). I imagine that Battin is surmising that not having the right data could mean they can't take an interest in objective perspective. Another presumption of suicide not being judicious because of this paradigm is caused by inside elements, for example, misery where they can unconsciously stifle certain data (Brandt, refered to in Battin 1995, 138). She counters this by expressing that you can in any case have sufficient data in light of the fact that the future might be as of now negative, even with a littler view (Battin 138-139). In this way, from her counterargument, she is countering any cases of thin perspectives that the restriction would endeavor to contend by expressing that a person's wellbeing status does not make a difference. Battin states that some would guarantee that suicide would be silly on the off chance that one conferred it in view of a far-fetched future, however expresses that submitting suicides later, for example, in sicknesses, would be objective while conferring it early would not be (140-141). Battin is stating that it would need to rely upon the circumstance that the individual is in. By and large, I think Battin is attempting to infer that it is hard to decide the measure of dependable data required so as to submit objective suicide. I surmise that suicide can be levelheaded since it is concerning the person's body and brain since it was what they were conceived with. It is their decision whether they submit suicide or not and they have the privilege to do whatever they need with it. I contend that they know their own bodies enough since they have lived in them for such a large number of years and at last would recognize what is best for them. Thusly, it would not be silly to confer suicide on the off chance that they are the ones who are conferring that demonstration. Some could state that since you possess your body does not make it normal to confer suicide. Truth be told, you may not know much about your body at all and are settling on a clueless choice, in this manner making it unreasonable to confer suicide. This would be a case of insufficiency of data being utilized as a supposition for nonsensical suicide (Battin 137). Be that as it may, dissenters would not know the human's circumstance either so it would not be reasonable for say if an individual submit suicide. This is something Battin recognizes when she expresses that every individual has their own thoughts regarding suicide and what comes after (142). It is up to the person to choose whether they end their lives; on the off chance that they think they have done what's needed research and realized as much as they can to submit suicide, at that point they ought to be permitted to continue. In any case, I trust that suicide is nonsensical if the individual submitting the demonstration isn't the person who contemplated it or concocted the plan to execute themselves. To be more particular, the person who is conferring suicide ought to have considered everything independent from anyone else with no impact or pressure. This gets from the first definition given in the content, in which the individual ought not be beguiled while conferring normal activities (Battin 132). This is something that I trust Battin ought to have taken a gander at assist since it could have influenced her selection of criteria. On the off chance that they are being affected by some other individual, at that point that isn't their own particular choice. Regardless of whether they are submitting the demonstration with their own particular bodies, their psyche was not a piece of the choice. One illustration is whether they were a piece of a faction drove by one fundamental person who had control over their adherents. In the event that that individual lectured his devotees to drink harm for him, and they do, at that point they were not unmistakably pondering it. They let another person instruct them, not what they thought to do. They ought to likewise not be physically constrained into submitting suicide too. A case of this could be indicating a firearm somebody's head while giving them a blade and instructing them to opening their throats. Regardless of whether from physical or passionate weight, nobody ought not have a decision on regardless of whether to end their lives. I would consider this additionally unreasonable in light of the fact that that individual isn't being given a shot on whether to end their lives or not; another person is settling on the decision for them. Battin claims that no demonstration is completely reasonable with pressure (131).â This exhibits suicide by power couldn't be sound on the grounds that on the off chance that you are being constrained with no different alternatives at that point its absolutely impossible that could completely be your choice. Battin likewise fortifies this in which one of her criteria is that it should meet the interests of that individual (Williams, refered to in Battin 1995, 146). Additionally, both of these focuses come up short the criteria of capacity to reason, in which they can move from premises to conclusion (Battin 133). On the off chance that the individual is being constrained or affected by others, at that point they can't make sense of the premises or conclusion without anyone else's input. On the off chance that suicide is constrained or not their choice, at that point it doesn't meet their interests yet the interests of others, exhibiting that suicide in that respects couldn't be levelheaded. One protest to my contention could be that the individual could settle on those choices independent from anyone else regardless of whether they were pressured or impacted by another individual since they could consider it notwithstanding. For instance, they could have addressed no and left, and that would have been more normal since they really thought whether they needed to continue or not. In any case, I believe that would be less balanced in specific conditions than suicide. Not every person can decrease and look the other way. On the off chance that a grown-up had the psyche of a six-year-old tyke, at that point they couldn't completely understand suicide. On the off chance that the pioneer of a faction advised that person to drink a vial of toxic substance, it is likely that they would in light of the fact that they may confide in them. They would not be able to settle on a sane choice about suicide since they can't completely comprehend the circumstance. The individual might not have the ability to state no either. The same would go for a real youngster too, as found in the content where kids would not consider suicide the finish of their lives, however just resting (Battin 133-134). This does not satisfy the criteria of ampleness of data, since they don't have the data from different assets or there was no push to get them from dependable sources (Battin 138). This would imply that regardless of whether suicide by people under those conditions was thought of it as, would not>GET ANSWER