Aqa law unit 2 *offical thread*

Original post by NHM

I concluded it was foreseeable giving someone contaminated food may result in them becoming ill.
Proximity in space and time
And FJR
So concluded a duty was owed :-) what about you?

I wrote all that but about dan and chirs, will i still get most of the marks.

Reply 143

Thamim01

1

for explain the meaning of omissions, how many examples did everyone give?

Reply 144

CatusStarbright

22

Original post by NHM

I concluded it was foreseeable giving someone contaminated food may result in them becoming ill.
Proximity in space and time
And FJR
So concluded a duty was owed :-) what about you?

I put that it was foreseeable, as food not cooked properly can make people ill. I put no proximity in space (as Euan and Chris never met) or relationship, but proximity in time, as Dan gave Euan the food presumably shortly after purchase. I also put that it was fair just and reasonable, so a duty was owed.

Reply 145

CatusStarbright

22

Original post by Thamim01

for explain the meaning of omissions, how many examples did everyone give?

I gave 5; duty from contact (Pittwood), public position (Dytham), statutory duty (Children and Young Persons Act 1933), duty to minimise harmful consequences of an act (Miller) and voluntary duty (Stone and Dobinsen)

Reply 146

Original post by Thamim01

for explain the meaning of omissions, how many examples did everyone give?

3 examples, but very detailed.

Reply 147

OP

Original post by Thamim01

for explain the meaning of omissions, how many examples did everyone give?

I used all 6...

Reply 148

OP

Original post by CatusStarbright

I put that it was foreseeable, as food not cooked properly can make people ill. I put no proximity in space (as Euan and Chris never met) or relationship, but proximity in time, as Dan gave Euan the food presumably shortly after purchase. I also put that it was fair just and reasonable, so a duty was owed.

Same as me then :-)

Reply 149

OP

Original post by Mireri

the conclusion of the application would be different. there was no proximity, as dan gave the food to euan, so there was no proximity in time, space or relationship

I have no idea how you came to the conclusion there was no proximity....

Reply 150

Mireri

Original post by CatusStarbright

I put that it was foreseeable, as food not cooked properly can make people ill. I put no proximity in space (as Euan and Chris never met) or relationship, but proximity in time, as Dan gave Euan the food presumably shortly after purchase. I also put that it was fair just and reasonable, so a duty was owed.

I'd disagree with that. It never specified that it was shortly after (but implied) and i would think that that wouldnt be relevant. why should chris owe a duty to someone he never met, he had no contract with, etc? euan wasnt a customer?

Reply 151

username1888121

7

I thought Chris gave Euan the food not Dan

Reply 152

Mireri

Original post by qwerty505

I thought Chris gave Euan the food not Dan

Definately Dan

Reply 153

Original post by Mireri

I'd disagree with that. It never specified that it was shortly after (but implied) and i would think that that wouldnt be relevant. why should chris owe a duty to someone he never met, he had no contract with, etc? euan wasnt a customer?

I answered the question wrong, but i think he did owe a duty of care. He may not have had a contract i.e. a reciept but he had a relationship of reliance to ensure that food offered was of a good standard. It is quite foreseeable if you buy food that you might share it with someone, especially on the streets with the homeless.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 154

username1888121

7

so did the question ask if chris owed a duty or if dan owed Euen a duty?

Reply 155

Original post by qwerty505

so did the question ask if chris owed a duty or if dan owed Euen a duty?

I'm pretty certain it was chris.

Reply 156

OP