1

You are required to answer Question 1 (10 marks) and any FOUR of Questions 2 through 6 (5 marks each). ANSWER ONLY QUESTION 1 AND FOUR OTHERS. IF YOU ANSWER MORE, I WILL MARK ONLY THE FIRST FIVE. Question 1. The Canadian Common Law system of justice follows the sh concept of stare decisis, but there is seldom one case on point which provides a judge with the decision he or she has to make. More often than not, opposing counsel offer a number of cases which they contend support their clients' position. You are the Supreme Court Justice hearing the case of Peak Performance Pontoons Ltd. ("PPP Inc. 7 v. Berlin Ski Sales Ltd. ("Berlin Ltd."). PPP In. is a BC company Berlin Ltd. is a German corporation. You have determined that the proper law is BC law. Explain how you would handle the following cases submitted by counsel: Submissions by counsel: Will Argue, Counsel for PPP Inc., provides the following cases: Kaur v. Singh, a BC Supreme Court decision, which is very similar on the fact pattern and is well reasoned; White v. Brown, a BC Court of Appeal case, which is somewhat helpful Darnell Dewey, of the law firm of Dewey, Cheatem & Howe, Counsel for Mexicana Skis Spa, offers Grewal V. Mailer, a BC Supreme Court case which appears to have been wrongfully decided, and the Mexican case of Schmidt v. Hofmann, from the Superior Court of Justice for the Nation, which is the highest appeal court in that country. It appears to be exactly on point. Also, on an issue where there is no case law available, both counsel refer to a legal textbook, deCastel on Private International Law. Explain why you are allowed to accept this? Your Legal Reasoning