The individual case study is a 5-page individual paper based on Raymond Bonner’s Anatomy of Injustice: A Murder Case Gone Wrong. Due: December 9th at Noon Description: Explain and contrast how two critical theories explain the events documented in the book.Book Summary: https://www.supersummary.com/anatomy-of-injustice/...

Question OnePeta is a keen skateboarding competitor who has competed in many women’s skateboarding competitions in Australia and overseas. She is looking forward to competing for the first time in the new Surfers Paradise Skateboarding Classic, and has already registered and paid the competition fee. She thinks she has a very good chance of doing well this year and even winning the main prize.She arrives in Surfers Paradise three days before the competition and books into a hostel with her skateboarding friend Heidi. After practising on the first day, she decides to relax on the second day and go sightseeing with Heidi. They decide to visit Mount Bullfrog, one of the area’s main tourist attractions and a place they have not seen before. They proceed to the wildlife reserve and the famous Mount Bullfrog lookout. Before they pay the entrance fee, Peta notices a large sign at the main entrance. It says ‘Welcome to Mount Bullfrog’ and contains interesting information about the geography of the area, the Aboriginal landmarks and the local flora and fauna. It also includes other official-looking information that Peta does not bother to read. Some of the information is covered by bushes. Included in that information at the bottom of the sign are the following words:“Patrons enter at their own risk. The Mount Bullfrog Reserve is not liable for your loss or injury.”About 10 minutes after entering, Peta and Heidi are making their way towards the main lookout area, when suddenly Peta’s shoe slips on a wet piece of rock covered in moss. She falls and fractures a small bone in her foot. After attending the main office and sick bay for treatment, Peta is told by the Reserve manager that they are not liable to compensate her for any injury or damage she may have suffered because of the notice displayed at the entrance. Peta complains that the Reserve cannot avoid liability because she was not aware of all the details on the sign, and because no-one pointed these out to her.After attending the local hospital and having her foot x-rayed and treated, Peta returns to the hostel and calls the organisers of the Surfers Paradise Skateboarding Classic. She explains to the main promoter that she will not be able to take part in the competition because of her injury and asks for the competition fee to be returned. The promoter informs her that there is nothing in the competition contract about return of fees in cases of withdrawal. Peta complains that skateboarding competition contracts usually allow return of moneys in circumstances like hers.Advise Peta whether she can to take legal action against the Mount Bullfrog Reserve for her injury and against the promoter of the Surfers Paradise Skateboarding Classic for the return of the fees she has paid.Note: In answering this question students do not need discuss any statutory provisions.Note-you need to be able to advise Peta whether the exclusion clause is valid or not in this contract scenario and go from there.Question Two:Cam is a manufacturer and seller of frozen food who recently constructed a new factory for his business. Cam engaged Mick Limited to lay a special floor in the factory, the work to be completed by 1 August 2019, at a cost of $50,000. Clause 7 of the Contract stated:If Mick Limited fails to complete the contract within the stipulated time, it will pay, by way of penalty, a sum of $40,000 in full satisfaction of its liability to CamCam also had a contract with Roffey Bros Limited for the latter to install machinery on the new factory floor between 5 and 10 August 2019 at a cost of $2,000,000.It was Cam’s intention to commence production of frozen food in his new factory on 15 August 2019.With this in mind, he contracted with Fresh Foods Limited for fresh food to the value of $500,000 to be delivered to the factory on 14 August 2019.Mick Limited only completed the floor on 15 August 2019. As a result, Cam paid Roffey Brothers Limited an extra $100,000 to allow for overtime payments to its employees in order that the machinery could be installed as quickly as possible. Cam finally commenced production of frozen food on 18 August 2019. The fresh food that was delivered by Fresh Foods Limited on 14 August 2019 was sold by Cam for $25,000 as pig food.Cam seeks your advice as to his rights against Mick Limited in relation to the latter’s breach of contract.