If you want to talk about Ben Cousins, post it here (mega merged thread)

[Big Al]

I think I did in my longer post. I do not think that understand the concept. Have you read any of the case law? If not I suggest that Donoghue v Stevenson is an ideal starting point.

I won't pretend to understand the concept of "duty of care" as it relates to the law. However does duty of care work both ways? Would Cousins have a duty of care to the Eagles and the AFL. It could be argued that Cousins actions over the past year have done damage to the Eagles. By sacking him they are mitigating any further damage that he may cause.

[Chow-Chicker]

I cannot speak for Layby but I would consider it likely that the club and the AFL would owe Cousins a common law duty of care in addition to any statutory obligation. This is the duty of care which I was talking about. Please provide evidence of the WA legislature's intention to cover the field in this regard before you start laughing, or the joke may be on you.

I think Contract Law is the relevant Law in respect to Ben Cousins and West Coast Eagles. The "duty of care" is shared between the two parties to ensure the terms of the contract are met. When there is a breach of these terms and conditions, then action can be taken from either party.

We can pull out every piece of legislation in existence and claim there has been a breach of some duty of care somewhere. We could even take the Dennis Denuto defence and claim "it's in the vibe of it".

I'm surprised no-one has mentioned the Human Rights Charter. Australia is in transition of implementing the Human Rights & Responsibilities Act into workplaces. It will commence in Victoria in January. Other States will follow suit. Now there is an interesting piece of law for everyone to digest.

[NMWBloods]

Legal opinion I have just received is that WC do owe a duty of care to Cousins but have not breached it.

[ROK Lobster]

I think Contract Law is the relevant Law in respect to Ben Cousins and West Coast Eagles. The "duty of care" is shared between the two parties to ensure the terms of the contract are met. When there is a breach of these terms and conditions, then action can be taken from either party.

We can pull out every piece of legislation in existence and claim there has been a breach of some duty of care somewhere. We could even take the Dennis Denuto defence and claim "it's in the vibe of it".

I'm surprised no-one has mentioned the Human Rights Charter. Australia is in transition of implementing the Human Rights & Responsibilities Act into workplaces. It will commence in Victoria in January. Other States will follow suit. Now there is an interesting piece of law for everyone to digest.

There is a broader duty of care, well outside contract or employment law. It is called the law of tort. Please read some case law. Perre v Apand is an Australian classic, with 4 or 5 excellent judgments from the bench of the HCA. What you have written above is rubbish.

[Industrial Fan]

It amazes me how ignorant people really are about the workings of the legal system. Yet somehow they feel they are qualified to comment, too many legal shows on the television i think.

I hate law, but I'm quite good at forensics n' that.

[Chow-Chicker]

There is a broader duty of care, well outside contract or employment law. It is called the law of tort. Please read some case law. Perre v Apand is an Australian classic, with 4 or 5 excellent judgments from the bench of the HCA. What you have written above is rubbish.

Listen ROK, the only rubbish continually littered on here is your constant blithering about nothing. Please provide specific law or reference to your claim that the WCE have breach in regard to the termination of Ben Cousins contract. If you believe Ben Cousins doesn't have a duty of care himself to his club and the league then you have no idea about anything.

Now stop being Denuto by saying there is a "broader duty of care" and be specific.

[NMWBloods]

I hate law, but I'm quite good at forensics n' that.

Vacuuming up bits of fluff and matching broken toenails and ageing maggots would do my head in!

[NMWBloods]

Listen ROK, the only rubbish continually littered on here is your constant blithering about nothing. Please provide specific law or reference to your claim that the WCE have breach in regard to the termination of Ben Cousins contract.

He has - he's provided two cases.

[AnnieH]

I think he means duty of care as in who's going to foot the rehab bills - I'm not sure. My eyes are beginning to glass over. I can't see what other "duty of care" there is.

Do you think the criminals are paying for Round II of his treatment, or would that be coming out of his own pocket? It should be coming out of his own pocket. If he can't afford it, come over to rehab in Sydney. No-one knows him here (as long as he keeps his shirt on) and I'm sure it'll be a cheaper option.

I would think that if the club were paying, that money would be better spent on the edumication of the other players.

[Chow-Chicker]

He has - he's provided two cases.

What is the relevance in either of them to Ben Cousins' contract arrangements?

[ROK Lobster]

Now stop being Denuto by saying there is a "broader duty of care" and be specific.

Have you read the case law?

I have never said that WCE have breached their duty of care to Cousins, just that they owe him one. Additionally, they may breach it, but the breach may never cause damage and hence there would be no cause of action. Read the cases, and if you still don't get it, come back with a few questions.

[ROK Lobster]

What is the relevance in either of them to Ben Cousins' contract arrangements?

It's NOT a contract law question, but a question of the law of tort. Just because you have had half a days workplace training does not make you an expert. There is more out there, really, and it may take some effort to discover it, but if you try really hard you might klearn something

[AnnieH]

Have you read the case law?

I have never said that WCE have breached their duty of care to Cousins, just that they owe him one. Additionally, they may breach it, but the breach may never cause damage and hence there would be no cause of action. Read the cases, and if you still don't get it, come back with a few questions.

OK mate, clear this up for me please ... (I'd like to understand where you're coming from)

In your opinion, what "duty of care" is owed. Is it monetary, rehab, his job back, hugs, kisses, etc.??? You say he is owed a "duty of care", yet you're not being specific in what that "duty of care" (IYO) actually is.

[ROK Lobster]

OK mate, clear this up for me please ... (I'd like to understand where you're coming from)

In your opinion, what "duty of care" is owed. Is it monetary, rehab, his job back, hugs, kisses, etc.??? You say he is owed a "duty of care", yet you're not being specific in what that "duty of care" (IYO) actually is.

The obligation owed to anyone whom it is reasonably foreseeable would be injured by the lack of care of that person: Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562

That's not my opinion. That's the law.

[Layby]

That's not my opinion. That's the law.

Give it up ROK, it really is a waste of time

Pigs, strawberries etc.