Week 1: Sports Rules are Laws?

Rules are not enforced by courts and the followers are open to opt out of rules. However, Laws are enforced by courts and every member of the society is forced to abide by the law (Institute of Australia, 2019). The followers are not allowed to opt out of the following of law. In case the law is broken by some person/organization, the court has power to punish in terms of prison or paying compensation. On the contrary, rules are simply expected standards of behavior or guidelines (see the hierarchy of laws and rules in pyramid below) (Institute of Australia, 2019). Based on the above distinction between rules and laws, the decision of suspending a player for an offence by National Rugby League or Australian Football League is a rule and not a law (Institute of Australia, 2019). However, rules are laws of the game to which the players must abide by but these are not imposed on the society or community at large. In sports, the rules are placed for the safety of the players and integrity of the game (Institute of Australia, 2019). A sport team/person is not able to challenge the decision of the referee in a court of law for not awarding the point or for banning the player from playing. This means, the rule of sports are not laws (Institute of Australia, 2019).

Week 2: Doctrine of Binding Precedent

The doctrine of binding precedent, often referred as stare decisis, forms the judicial attitude that all the precedent cases that are factually similar and deal with similar legal issues, must be followed by subsequent cases (Wan, 2012). Under the doctrine of binding precedent, the judge has to follow the precedents even if he disagrees with the outcome. The doctrine of binding precedent indicates that the lower courts have to follow the precedents set by all the courts higher than it. In Australia, the hierarchy of courts is shown in the figure below (Wan, 2012). It means the judges of Supreme Court will have to follow the precedents set by High Court and County Court will be following precedents set by both Supreme and High Court judges.

Week 3

Frank can sue the local council or the football club, or both, in negligence for the broken arm that he received on the grounds of duty of care. The occupiers or owners of the sporting facilities owe a duty of care to the spectators enjoying on their premises (All Law, 2020). They must ensure that necessary precautions are taken for the safety of crowd. The sport participants owe a duty of care to prevent the foreseeable injuries to the spectators. In case of Frank, he can pursue a claim of negligence that he got injured as a result of negligent action by football player while sitting in the stadium. Moreover, the case can be built upon the American Tort “Baseball Rule” where it is established that the baseball club and/or councils failed to carry sufficient care for spectators through covering the seating area with netting (Find Law, 2019). It can be established that the football club didn’t take every reasonable precaution for protecting the spectators before allowing them to the games.

B:

Council and/or the football club can defend the personal injury lawsuit on basis of “assumption of risk” (Hartley, 2009). The claim can be successfully argued by showing that Frank had actual knowledge of the risks of harm that are typically present in the sporting activities yet he voluntarily chose to be present at the game. It can be argued that fans who come to the stadium, do know the risk of being hit by a ball, but still they decide the risk to be worth it for enjoying the game  (Hartley, 2009). This voluntary assumption of risk is known as “volenti non fit injuria” and occurs when the standard of care can be removed if and only if the claimant is proved to be knowledgeable of the possible risks that can occur  (Hartley, 2009). Moreover, the defendants can show the waiver of personal liability printed on the back or front of the tickets (if any).

Week 4: Vicarious Liability

Vicarious liability deals with the cases in which one person is held liable for the acts of the other person. It is exception to the general rule where one person is held liable for his own actions. It is based on the principle “qui facit per se per alium facit per se” (Giliker, 2010). It means that the person who commits an act through another person is deemed to be responsible directly for the act himself. This happens mostly in the relationships between employee and employers in which one person holds the position of an agent while other the position of principal. The concept has roots in the facts that the superior party (normally the employers) have induced, facilitated or contributed to the acts of its agents (normally the employees). Hence, the employer is liable for the actions of his employees  (Giliker, 2010).

In order to prove the employers’ liability, the plaintiff must fulfill the three primary criteria; there must be a relationship of control between defendant and wrong doer, there must be a tortious act and the act must be conducted in the course of employment  (Giliker, 2010). In Australia, “the sufficient relationship” test entails the balancing of factors like skill levels, pay schemes and degree of control granted to the agent by the employer (Mann & Roberts, 2016). For the act to be considered within the normal course of employment, it should be authorized or be connected with the authorized act that could be conducted in a proper mode, but was performed in an improper mode by the employee. An example is that the owner of car will be held vicariously liable for criminal acts by the driver who was performing a task of the owner while driving the car  (Mann & Roberts, 2016).

Week 5

A contract is a legal agreement between two or more persons that is enforceable by law. For a contract to be valid and enforceable, it must fulfill the five requirements;

• The parties should possess the legal capacity to enter in the contract
• There should be a binding offer that must be accepted by the other party
• The contract must be based on consideration i.e. value given in return for a promise
• The resulting agreement must be a genuine one
• The object should be lawful

Source: (James & Thomas, 2020)

Generally, the advertisements do not constitute an offer but an invitation to treat (invitation to make an offer) given that the word “offer” isn’t used in the legal sense. ) In the given case, Greta used the advertisement to invite the people to come forward for making price offers for her car. The customers are the persons who would make the offer leaving it upon Greta to decide whether or not to accept that offer. As the element of offer and acceptance is missing in the given case, there is no legally enforceable contract between Greta and Sam. However, the contract will be enforceable if Greta and Sam agree on a negotiated price and sign the contract in which Greta offers $2200 and Sam accepts the offer of $2200 for the car after negotiation). Nonetheless, in absence of offers and acceptance, the advertisements are merely the invitations to treat and hence do not enforce a legally binding contract between Greta and Sam).

References

All Law, 2020. Liability for Injury at a Stadium or Sports Facility. [Online] Available at: https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/personal-injury/liability-stadium-sports-facility.html
[Accessed 19 May 2020].

Find Law, 2019. If You’re Hit by a Foul Ball, Can You Sue?. [Online] Available at: https://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2014/06/if-youre-hit-by-a-foul-ball-can-you-sue.html
[Accessed 21 May 2020].

Giliker, P., 2010. Vicarious Liability in Tort: A Comparative Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hartley, H., 2009. Sport, Physical Recreation and the Law. s.l.:Routledge.

Institute of Australia, 2019. Sport and the Rule of Law in Australia. [Online] Available at: https://www.ruleoflaw.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Rule-of-Law-Institute_Booklet-Sport-and-the-Rule-of-Law.pdf
[Accessed 19 May 2020].

James, N. & Thomas, T., 2020. Business Law. s.l.:John Wiley & Sons.

Legal Commissions Services of Australia, 2020. Courts. [Online] Available at: https://lsc.sa.gov.au/dsh/ch06s01.php
[Accessed 21 May 2020].

Mann, R. A. & Roberts, B. S., 2016. Business Law and the Regulation of Business. s.l.:Cengage Learning.

Wan, M., 2012. Reading the Legal Case: Cross Currents Between Law and the Humanities. 2nd ed. s.l.:Routledge.

[citationic]