Surface level diversity and deep level diversity Essay
Surface level diversity and deep level diversity
Question 1: Going to the following website http://www.austlii.edu.au / and locate the Mildura case: the full citation of the case is: Mildura office equipment & supplies Pty Ltd v Canon Finance Australia Ltd  VSC 42 (16 February 2006) Explain briefly how you found it.
There are many way to look for the case .But in my opinion the best way to find it exactly is step 1 firstly Go to the website http://www.austlii.edu.au /. After that on the first page it appears cases & legislation. And click on Victoria then chose Supreme Court of Victoria 1994 (AustL II) to find the civil case. Finally decision beginning with M looking for Mildura office equipment & supplies Pty Ltd v Canon Finance Australia Ltd  VSC 42 (16 February 2006). In addition to looking the appeal case It is almost the same with finding civil case. There is only some gently difference click on Supreme Court of Victoria – court of appeal 1998 (AustL II) instate of Supreme Court of Victoria 1994(AustL II).
Question 2: The Mildura case concerns the meaning of a unilateral contract, define a unilateral contract. A unilateral contract is one in which an offer is made inviting acceptance by actual performance rather than by a promise. For example, the offer of a regard for the return of a lost dog is accepted by the return of the dog. A unilateral contract ‘comes into the existence when one party promise s to do something in return for acts performed by other party, with the intention of being contractually bound if those acts are performed, and the other party accepts that promise by performing his or her side of the bargain”: Gippsreal Ltd v Register of Title (2007) 20 VR 127 at .
Question 3: An English precedent case, noted in para 2 of the Mildura case, establish the definition of a unilateral contract. In paragraph 2 of the Mildura case the unilateral contract related to contract of the Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Company Limited (“Carlill v Carbolic”) class. Following is a case refer to carlill v Carbolic case commonwealth of Australia v Davis Samuel pty Ltd (No 7)  ACTSC 146 (1 August 2013). Next to is briefly explanation about the way how to find the “carlill v carbolic” case. Firstly go to Mildura case of Supreme Court of Victoria in the paragraph 2 click on the footnote  which is in blue .in the footnote it will have the case and the case citation. The defendants manufactured an influenza to preparation called the carbolic smoke ball. They advertised their preparation by offering to pay £100 to any purchaser who used it in accordance with the printed directions and caught influenza.
The advertisement stated that the defendants had deposited £1000 with their bankers to show their sincerity. The plaintiff bought and used the smoke ball as directed but still caught influenza. She claimed the £100 and when her claim was rejected sued the defendants. The court of Appeal rejected the defendants ‘arguments that the advertisement was a mere puff and was too vague to constitute a definite offer. In the court’s view there was an offer made to all the world which was capable of acceptance by those members of the public who performed the conditions set out in the offer. Accordingly, it was held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the £100: Carlill v carbolic Smoke ball co  1 QB 246.