PRE-EXAM PRACTICE QUESTIONS
The following problem questions are from previous exams. Note what is said about Common Errors to Avoid for each of the 4 questions. The first question is the least challenging (it was weighted accordingly). The questions are not in any particular order. SAMPLE 1 Krishnah wanted to purchase a motor cycle. She applied to Pino Motors Pty Ltd (“Pino’s”) who specialised in Forum motor cycles. Krishnah informed the dealer, Zvonko, that she wanted a motor cycle which was capable of high speed and suitable for regular use in motor cycle race meetings. Zvonko recommended a Mark IV Forum motor cycle to satisfy these requirements and showed Krishnah a demonstration model in the showroom. Before placing an order and signing a written contract for a "Mark IV Forum motor cycle”, Krishnah again asked Zvonko whether this particular bike was suited for racing. Zvonko assured her it was and many racing people used this type of bike. She also asked whether these particular bikes would “hold their value, relative to most other bikes”. Zvonko responded saying, “yes, I can almost guarantee they do, based on what I have read about them in some of the industry magazines”. The contract Krishnah signed contained the term, “The parties acknowledge that this contract contains the whole agreement and that no other statements whatever induced the sale.” When Krishnah took delivery of the motor cycle, she discovered that the acceleration was slow and after testing it before and during a competition race meeting, she found it unsuitable. She also discovered that the bike was like most other bikes and would not hold its value as had been suggested. Advise Krishnah. NOTES 1. This question is similar to the TERMS I tutorial. HOWEVER, there, you were asked to focus on statutory implied terms under the SOGA whereas now you are being asked to Advise Krishnah without restriction. This means looking at all potential causes of action under: Law of Contract, Law of Negligence and/or Misleading and Deceptive Conduct & statute and common law ♣. So, aside from the causes of action/ issues discussed in the tutorial, what other issues are raised by this question? See if you can identify them. 2. You can apply the same technique from Problem 1 to the later tutorial problems by asking: Are there other relevant issues, aside from those
Whether you are to look to some or all of these areas will depend on the facts. But the point is that, unlike the tutorials, we are no longer focussing on select issues within a select area.
♣

1/6

discussed in the tutorial? This is good way to practice issueidentification. Common Errors to Avoid • The most common error students make when addressing this question is the failure to consider K’s position beyond statutory implied terms or failure to see linkages b/w this topic & later topics. As explained in the exam guidelines, it is important to review the material we have covered with a mind to identifying themes and concepts and their links to and between topics. *Compare for eg the way we approached the Law of K: Terms I tutorial, with the later tutorials in Wks 7-13. • There is no issue here about formation of the sales K, so you need not discuss formation of K. You are told there is a K. The only time you would discuss formation of K is if it is an issue on the given facts – and even then this is likely to be a sub-issue only the main issues being whether K terms have been breached, etc. SAMPLE 2 Isabella is a famous opera singer. Starburst Productions Pty Ltd enters into a contract with Isabella for her to appear in a series of concerts in all capital cities in Australia for a three week period. The contract provides that Isabella is to arrive in Australia one week before the first concert in order to rehearse with the local band which is her backup. She is to perform two concerts in Sydney, have two days leisure, two concerts in Melbourne, followed by two days off and so on until she has appeared in all capital cities. Starburst is to pay for all her accommodation and reasonable living expenses while she is in Australia. Penelope is a fan of Isabella. She rings QuickTix, a ticket seller, the first day Isabella’s Sydney concerts are advertised. She explains she wants “A” reserve seats in the centre front row. QuickTix says, “We always give the customer what he or she wants – your ticket will be mailed to you this afternoon”. Advise all parties on all relevant breach/ termination of contract issues in the following situations: 1. Isabella has a bad asthma attack and her doctor advises her not to travel until she is feeling stronger. She arrives in Australia three days before her first Sydney concert. 2. While on tour in Australia, Isabella dines at the best restaurants in each city at a cost of $200.00 per meal. She also charges expensive jewelry and clothes to her hotel account. 3. When Isabella’s asthma recurs, her doctor tells Starburst it would endanger her health to continue with the tour and suggests Isabella’s twin sister Ingrid appear for her instead. Ingrid is also a singer but

2/6

specializes in eighteenth century music and has no experience performing in arena style productions. Ingrid is delighted to help her sister and assures Starburst, “It will be alright”. Ingrid performs in the Perth concerts to mixed reviews. Fans wondered but were unsure what seemed odd. 4. Two weeks before Isabella is scheduled to appear in Adelaide, there is a terrible bushfire. The theatre where the performance was to be held was burned down. No performances take place in Adelaide, despite full ticket sales. 5. Starburst is worried about Isabella’s health and unsure of Ingrid’s ability and cancels the tour. It refuses to refund the money for pre-purchased tickets to cancelled concerts. NOTES 1. This question is asking you to look at only one area of law – the Law of Contract. Specifically, it is asking you to consider only relevant breach/ termination of K issues. 2. The challenge with this style of question is to: (A) Identify the relevant sub-issues (you are given the central issue); & (B) Spend sufficient time analysing the very detailed facts re those issues. Common Errors to Avoid • Read the question carefully to ensure that you are advising the right party in the right area. There may be other possible causes of action here outside of the law of contract (eg, s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law 2010 (Cth). However, since you are asked to advise E with a particular focus it would be inappropriate to raise those issues. Nor will there be marks assigned to them. • Another common error with this style of question is the failure to analyse the facts in sufficient detail or failure to apply the law critically to the given facts. * See further, Podcast – Feedback on MS Exam. As mentioned in lectures, although this questions is asking you to look only at one area of law – & indeed specific issues within that area – the issues themselves are more involved.

3/6

SAMPLE 3 Greyban Pty Ltd advertised a comb in the newspapers in the following terms: Great news for hair sufferers! Is your hair grey? Greyban Comb is the answer! Use as directed and in seven days not a grey hair left. $20 guarantee. Luxurious Lox read the advertisement. Since her hair was grey, she purchased the comb from the chemist and used it as directed. While it is true there is not a grey hair left, this is because the comb caused all grey hair to fall out. Ms Lox is now bald as a peanut. Advise Ms Lox. NOTES 1. This is a multi-issue question typical of exam questions. It asks you to advise without limitation, so you need to consider all major areas – Law of Contract, Law of Negligence and/or Misleading and Deceptive Conduct. ♣ 2. The challenge with this style of question is that it requires a broader approach to issue identification, as well as a detailed understanding of the links to & between topics. The issues themselves are (unlike other more focussed questions above) not that involved, but you need to move quickly in identifying the linkages. Common Errors to Avoid • The most common error students make when answering questions of this type is the failure to map out a structure or answer plan before they start writing. • Another common error (despite repeated gentle warnings) is the failure to identify relevant issues from all the potential areas, and/or failure to see linkages to and between the various areas. Remember what we’ve said in lectures about issue-identification & how to weigh up issues. See also, the approach in ‘Herb’s H/ware’ (but note the warning given in the Exam Guidelines about use of Sample Answers!) • Other errors include: i.
♣

Failure to cite relevant authorities.

Again, whether you are to look to some or all of these areas will depend on the facts; but the point is that, unlike the tutorials, we are no longer focussing on select issues within a select area.

4/6

ii.

Failure to read and carefully analyse the question (some students assume the question is similar to other questions; or other sample questions).

* See further, Podcast – Feedback on MS Exam.

SAMPLE 4 Joe’s Trucking Pty Ltd (‘Joe’s’) runs a transport business specialising in delivering petrol. Joe’s owns the petrol tankers. Under their contract of employment with Joe’s the tanker drivers are responsible for maintaining the petrol tankers they drive in a roadworthy condition. In May 2009 at noon one of Joe’s tankers driven by Marcia ran out of control and hit a house destroying the house and seriously injuring Franco who was robbing the house while its owners were at work. The petrol ran out of the damaged tanker and into the storm water drain. About 3 hours later and about 4 kilometers away Sven threw a cigarette butt into a drain in a city park and ignited the petrol that had spilled from Marcia’s truck. Sven was physically unharmed but suffers continuing post traumatic stress from the events. The cause of the tanker running out of control was found to be poor maintenance. At the time of the accident Marcia was not following her designated delivery route as she decided to drive the tanker to her favorite cake shop to buy lunch. Task 1 [80% of the marks available in Part B] Advise Marcia on her liability in negligence (if any) arising from the above events. Support your answer with reference to relevant cases. In your answer there is no need to consider matters outside of any liability in negligence such as occupational health and safety considerations. Task 2 [20% of the marks available in Part B] If Marcia is found liable in negligence on the facts above will Joe’s Trucking Ltd be held vicariously liable for that negligence? Give reasons for your answer and support it with reference to relevant cases. NOTES 1. This question asks you to Advise M only on her liability in negligence. Notice also the weighting for Parts A and B. 2. In a question of this nature it is important that you clearly set out the relationship of the parties in respect of each cause of action.

5/6

3. You may also wish to abbreviate party names (using M, F, S, J).

Common Errors to Avoid • Each element needs to be considered, but care should be taken to assess which issues arising in the question require more detailed analysis. • Where the same legal principles apply in different sections of the same question, do not waste time repeating the same material. Simply say, “as above” (etc).

6/6