EVIDENCE LAW
EVIDENCE LAW
Margie v Mitch
center850009088120February 24, 2021
ADESH SINGH KANDHARIS4606997Task 1
1000000February 24, 2021
ADESH SINGH KANDHARIS4606997Task 1
Background
Margie took the help of Mac to sell her vintage Holden car passed on to her by her late grand-uncle. Mac found Mitch as a buyer for the car and had verbal negotiations with Mitch and his friend Ted. Eventually, a deal was struck between them over an exchange of few emails wherein Mitch emailed Mac an offer of $88,000 for the car on their understanding of the repairs, RWC, registration and transfer. Mac agreed to the offer and advised a deposit of $22,000 for the necessary action to which Mitch did the needful immediately.
However, a dispute has since risen between all of them with Mac advising Margie the deal of $88,000 was all exclusive of repairs, RWC, registration and transfer. Whereas Mitches side of the story is that Mac and himself had agreed in presence of Ted the total price of $88,000 all-inclusive of repairs, RWC, registration and transfer. Due to the given circumstances and no clear understanding of facts, the matter has been taken to the court with both parties self-representing. Margie has testified and given her side of the evidence and similarly, Mac has done the same as well as asked for Ted to be presented as a witness.
Ans 1:
Issue
The key issue here is that Mitch has testified and given his side of the facts. Margie must find the grounds to object to Mitches evidence under the common law rule of evidence.
Rule and Application
By following the precedent from R v Young (1995) QB 324 the common law rule of evidence in support of fact-finding to be rational for the court or jury to make a fair decision. Margie can object to the statements given by Mitch by using words like for the necessary indicating an understating as misguiding the court with what Mitch wants to give it a meaning. If the cost of repairs were to be included he should have used words like all-inclusive with the offer he gave. Mitch mentioning it was no coincidence regarding the estimates of repair has got no relevance with the $22,000 given as the deposit money to secure the car for him. The fact is that it helps shows the remaining balance that Mitch owes to buy the car as agreed in the offer and can be shown with many other probabilities to that amount. Therefore, these statements by Mitch are his understanding of the agreement without having Mac committing to it.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Margie has a chance of objecting to Mitches evidence based on the fact-finding rational rule of evidence.
Ans 2:
Issue
To stop Mitch from calling Ted as a witness for his evidence Margie needs grounds to object under the common law rule of evidence.
Rule and Application
The famous case of MWJ v The Queen (2005) HCA 74 and Browne v Dunn (1894) 6 R. 67 brings in the common law rule of evidence wherein it is essential that one party must give suitable notice to the other party and any of their witness for any imputation that the former intends to make against them about their relevant conduct or witnesses credit in relation to the case. Therefore, Margie can object to Mitch from calling Ted as a witness as Mitch has not given a suitable notice to the court or Margie about this information. Margie needs to first cross-examine the witness, and then can Ted provide any statements with respect to his facts as a shred of evidence on the matter.
Conclusion
There is a good chance that Margie will be successful in bringing an objection to Mitch having Ted as a witness since he has not given appropriate notice.
Ans 3:
Issue
In order to undermine Margies case, Mitch needs to figure out a common-law rule of evidence.
Rule and Application
The case of Jones v Dunkel (1959) HCA 8 is a precedent in the common law rule of evidence that helps Mitch to weaken Margies case since Margie gave the evidence of all facts from her side regarding an agreement that took place between Mitch and Mac. Mac was never brought into the picture in giving his statement or being cross-examined as a witness to testify on the facts from his side where he was involved. The rule clearly states that when a party fails to bring a witness who is ordinarily expected to be called however is not called in the circumstances when the witness was available, with parties knowing the gist of the evidence and no other reasonable explanation for not to call the witness inference is that the persons evidence would not support that party. Considering the given circumstances negotiation took place between Mitch and Mac whereas Margie was never involved. If Macs reputation as a dubious businessman can be brought into the perspective while cross examining Mitch has a strong case.
Conclusion
For the given rule and case Mitch has a good chance of undermining Margies case in front of the judge for not bringing Mac as a witness.
