In my torts class i am completing an individual case study on the Australian Safeway Stores v Zaluzna. I have done the first two sections which is basically talking about the facts and the issues and outcome but i'm struggling with the last part of the assignment step which is writing critically analyse and reflect on the case, consider facts such as is itmorally satisfying, legally convincing, does itEvidences a good public policy and is it persuasive and compellingly written, or dense and impenetrable.

I need the answer by 9:30pm tonight.

I need help with answering each of these questions: regarding the Australian Safeway Stores v Zaluzna case

-Do you think this case was correctly decided at the time (in terms of the existing

precedents)? This requires your opinion of the way previous cases were treated

(was this a correct application of the relevant precedents) and how the judges

synthesised those cases into the governing legal principle in this case.