Corporate Law

5339 WordsAug 6, 201222 Pages
Weekly Case-studies for Small Group Seminars Semester 1, 2012 Week 2 case study Deciding what legislation means Case-study: The toxic waste Late in the afternoon on 1 December 2009 Alex Demetriou, who owns a waste removal business, collects a truckload of contaminated soil from excavations at a building site in Melbourne. He drives the full truck back to his company’s yard in Werribee. He leaves it parked there overnight, intending to drive it to a remote dump the next day. A municipal inspector sees the truck in the yard and discovers that the soil in the truck is toxic waste. The inspector tells Alex that the law forbids storing such materials near a river…show more content…
He stops making his promised payments to Alison. Alison brings an action against Basil in the Victorian Magistrates Court to enforce payment of the promised maintenance allowance. Alison says her agreement with Basil is legally enforceable, even though it was one made between spouses. Basil argues that agreements between married persons are not intended to be legally enforceable. 1. Identifying the issue ▪ Discuss the facts of the case study. What facts are in dispute? What facts are agreed? ▪ What legal question (issue) needs to be answered to resolve the case? 2. Finding the relevant law ▪ Assume that there is no legislation on this point. ▪ Assume that a search of reported cases produces three cases concerning agreements between married persons. Each case raises the question whether the agreement was legally enforceable or not. Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571 Cohen v Cohen (1929) 42 CLR 91 Merritt v Merritt [1970] 2 All ER 760; 1 WLR 1211 ▪ Find and read the summaries of these cases. Do these cases indicate whether or not an agreement between married persons is legally enforceable? 3. Using cases as precedents Work through the following steps with each of the three cases. ▪ In which court was the reported case decided? Will the previous decision be treated as
Open Document