Problem 1: Suppose a Court hears a case with the following facts: Mr Chan was a bespoke tailor who ran a thriving and successful business in a small country town. As part of his business, he sourced and purchased the finest Australian materials possible for garment making including linens, cottons, wool and silks. The products he sourced were all of very high quality which he then used to create exclusive and unique fashion garments for his customers. One morning, after returning from a week's holiday, Mr Chan unlocked the fabric storeroom to access a special woolen fabric that he had recently purchased in order to make woolen graduation blazers for a local high school. Mr Chan had purchased the fabric directly from the manufacturer of the wool, 'Macarthur Woolen Mills' ('MWM') for $80,000. As he rolled the first length of wool across the cutting table, ready to cut the fabric for the blazers, Mr Chan was shocked to see what he described as being "thousands of worm-like creatures" crawl out from the fabric. The entire woolen fabric was destroyed and no part of it could be salvaged. Mr Chan had never seen anything like this before and he immediately became ill with severe vomiting and was quite traumatised by the sight of the larvae crawling out from every part of the fabric. He was unable to continue in his work for eight weeks. Mr Chan was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress as a result of the incident. He lost the entire fabric as well as other all other fabrics which were stored in the same storeroom. He also lost the contract with the school for the provision of the graduation blazers. Mr Chan brought a claim in negligence against MWM for causing him to suffer the illness and post traumatic stress disorder. Mr Chan successfully established that the fabric he purchased from MWM was the source of the infestation. Mr Chan was successful in his negligence claim against MWM. What binding and/or persuasive precedents (if any) could be used by the Judge hearing this case in their judgment to hold the manufacturer of the woolen fabric, MWM, liable? Explain how the precedent/s that you have used are relevant to the facts of Mr Chan's case.

Problem 2: Assume, hypothetically, that the following Act exists: Maritime Safety Act 2020 (Cth). Assume also that this Act contains the following sections: Short Title: "An Act to protect public safety on the waterways". [Assented to 1 February 2020] 3 Objects of Act The objects of this Act are: (a) to protect public safety on the waterways; and, (b)to provide a common system of maritime signs, symbols, beacons, buoys and marks. 4 Definitions In this Act "maritime signs and symbols" shall include all signals, symbols, warnings, signs, posts, beacons, buoys, marks or devices. 28 Endangering public Any person who deliberately interferes with any maritime sign or symbol or any part of a maritime sign or symbol shall be guilty of an offence. Penalty: $2000 fine and/or imprisonment for up to two years. Donna was a cartoonist and a boating enthusiast. She also liked the occasional game of "dare" with her friends. After losing a game, Donna's friends dared her to design a new cartoon character and place it in five locations around Central Beach. Donna created five characters out of wire. Thinking her friends would be most impressed, she took her boat out in the very early hours of 1 April 2020 and fitted her wire creations to the top of five red and green navigation markers which were located towards the mouth of the Crab River (where it enters the ocean at Central Beach). She placed the creations over the top of each marker carefully so as not to obscure the red and green colours as she knew the importance of these markers. She was just about to place the fifth character on the final marker when she was apprehended by water police and charged under S 28 of the Maritime Safety Act 2019 (Cth). You are a solicitor and Donna now seeks your assistance. What advice would you give Donna concerning what a Judge is likely to decide and why a Judge would decide this? In providing your advice to Donna, you should keep in mind that the Judge determining the matter is required to apply Section 15AA of the Commonwealth Acts Interpretation Act 1901 which provides: In interpreting a provision of an Act, an interpretation that would best achieve the purpose or object of the Act (whether or not that purpose or object is expressly stated in the Act) is to be preferred to each other interpretation.