Assessment Item 1 – Individual AssignmentQuestion 1: Austlii Web ExerciseCase: Sorbello & Ors v. Sorbello & Anor  QSC 219 (12 August 2005)The hearing of the above-mentioned cases’ venue was the Supreme Court of Queensland, Queensland, Australia. The court ordered that the justice involved in the case against Mrs. Sorbello is that the case be dismissed due to insufficient lack of evidence by the plaintiff. According to Judge Mullins, Mrs. Andersons evidence conflicted with key ideas presented before the court and that most of her answers at the time of the proceeding were irresponsive to the questions posed.
He concludes that Mrs. Anderson’s tendency to interpret her events eluding questions was doubtful. This is evident as she reiterates that she recorded details pertaining to conversations made with the first defendant during the period of 1997 and 1998 in her 1997 diary. The four main catchwords that best describe the proceedings of the above-mentioned case are as follows: GENERAL CONTACTUAL PRINCIPLES, OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE, MATTERS NOT GIVING RISE TO BINDING CONTRACT and AGREEMENT NOT INTENDED TO CREATE LEGAL RELATIONS. The aim of the aforementioned catchwords is to prelude events that reflect where wife diagnosed with terminal illness – where discussions took place between wife and husband concerning how wife’s life insurance payout would be used to benefit their children – where husband was nominated beneficiary under the policy – where after wife’s death dispute between wife’s mother and husband as to whether wife’s conversations with the husband evidenced an intention by the husband and wife to create legal relations – whether these conversations constituted a contract for the benefit of the plaintiffs within the terms of s 55 Property Law Act 1974 (Austlii).
The plaintiffs in the case are Gina shez Maria Sorbello, Jai Desmond Sorbello and Andre Giovani Sorbello (by his litigation guardian Beryl Emily Anderson). The defendants are John Sorbello and Crown Imports International PTY Ltd ACN 070 946 799. Counsels N J. Thompson who acts for the plaintiffs and APJ Collins who acts for the defendants represent the two parties. On the other hand, the solicitor representing the plaintiffs is the Gray’s Professional Service Group and the solicitor for the defendants is Fitz-Walter.
The judge’s decision was dismissal of hearing hence reiterating that he would only listen to submissions provided in accordance to costs. He eventually decided that Mrs. Anderson would personally take up responsibility and accept all costs ordered against Andre as she was his litigation guardian. Question 2: Short Answer Questionsa) The common law is also known as a precedent or case law. Judges through court decisions and tribunals of the same capacity as the courts agree upon the common law. With regard to this, these decisions are of utmost importance as legislative statutes and the executive branch actions are not responsible for such decisions.
The common legal system used in Australia is a system that acts within provisions of precedential weight with regard to the common law. This is evident through the principle of treating similar facts differently and on different occasions thus rendering it unfair. In light of the decisions made, the precedent body assumes the role of common law through binding future decisions. This explanation follows in the scene below: Considering a disagreement by parties involved concerning the law, an idealized common law court takes the mandate and looks into past precedential decisions of germane courts.
If these courts find details concerning a dispute resolved in the past, the court follows the same procedure and reasoning used arrive at a decision. Therefore, the principal used to arrive at such decision is the stare decisis. If a court realizes fundamental distinct facts concerning previous cases, judges bear responsibility, as the law requires formulating a law through creating a precedent. Following this process, decisions arrived at become precedent and thus used by courts.