Submit Your Question

Answering Assignment Homework Questions

High Quality, Fast Delivery, Plagiarism Free - Just in 3 Steps

Upload Questions Details and Instructions:

Select Assignment Files


Plagiarism-Free Answers

Assignment solution along with originality report.

Answers From Qualified Tutors

Get assignment answer help by skilled & qualified tutors.

Best Price Guarantee

Friendly pricing & refund policy.

Case Study Help reviews

LAW231 – Law of Torts 231 Assignment Questions Answer

Law of Torts 231 Essay Assignment Solution

Are you seeking a Law of Torts 231 Assignment? Case Study Help provides tort law assignment help from an expert writer at the most affordable price. Avail of our free Tort Law Assignment Sample at Get 100% plagiarism free work with round the clock assistance for your help.

Order Now

Assignment Details:-

  • Number of Words*: 1200
  • Topic :: Tort law
  • Document Type :: Essay (any type)
  • Subject: Law
  • Citation/Referencing Style: New Zealand Law Style Guide

RE: Legal Advice – Peters & Co. to Ansley Allison and Hemi Motu Dear Torts Law Student

Our new clients, Ansley Allison and Hemi Motu, have approached us to review a letter of advice they received from Peta Peters, a Partner at Peters & Co. law firm located at 88 Shortland Street in Auckland. Ansley and Hemi are romantic partners.

The letter of advice advises Ansley and Hemi on their legal position in relation to a dispute against

  1. The organiser of the “Willy Wonka Auckland Experience”, being Mattias Ming; and
  2. social media influencer Miley Ansley worked as a self-employed contractor at the recent “Willy Wonka Auckland Experience” which was advertised as an “immersive experience” where participants journey through the “wild and insanely fun world of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory”. Hemi was an attendee.

Ansley and Hemi confirm that Peta’s letter of advice accurately describes the material facts in the dispute. However, they are concerned that her legal advice which follows may not correctly advise them on their legal position. It is very scant in its analysis.

Your instructions are to review the letter of advice attached to this Memorandum, identify in a second legal opinion addressed to us all inaccuracies or issues that you see with the advice, and provide accurate advice in place of the errors/ambiguities. Your analysis should be confined to the intentional torts issues that arise. You can only refer to materials provided on the “Reading List” in CANVAS in your analysis. Your legal opinion must be limited to 1,200 words (including footnotes). Please ensure your legal opinion complies with the New Zealand Law Style Guide. Please use footnotes – no bibliography is needed.

The use of generative AI, including but not limited to Google Gemini, Microsoft Bing AI, Grammarly AI writing assistant and ChatGPT, is strictly prohibited in the drafting of your legal opinion. Any suspected use of generative AI technology will lead to academic misconduct processes being initiated. Please also refer to the Canvas assignment page for the declarations you are making when you submit your legal opinion, which includes declarations that you have not engaged in unauthorised collusion/collaboration or used tools/resources prohibited for this assessment.

In order to get back to Ansley and Hemi promptly, we need you to submit your legal opinion to us via CANVAS by 12.00pm (midday) on Friday, 24 May 2024.


Your Supervising Partners

23 April 2024


TO: Ansley Allison and Hemi Motu

FROM: Peta Peters, Partner, Peters & Co.

Dear Ansley and Hemi

Also Checkout: LWZ116 Assignment Answers on Torts Case Study


Legal Advice – Willy Wonka Auckland Experience

  • Thank you for asking us to advise you on your recent dispute with the organiser of the Willy Wonka Auckland Experience (the Experience), Mattias Ming (Ming) and social media influencer, Miley Morgan (Miley).
  • We set out below the material facts that you have provided to us in addition to our legal advice. As instructed, we have confined our advice to only cover intentional tort issues that arise from the material facts. We conclude our advice with our recommendations on next steps.

Material Facts

  • On 1 November 2023, Ansley responded to a classified advertisement seeking workers, including actors, to work at the The Experience was advertised as an “immersive experience” whereby participants journey through the “wild and insanely fun world of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory”.
  • The Experience was scheduled to occur at the Auckland Events Centre between 5 and 7 April The tickets were sold at $40 per adult and $20 per child. However, as a family, the maximum you would be charged was capped at $100.
  • Ansley, a recent graduate from UNITEC acting school, was excited about bringing the “Willy Wonka” experience to life. On 10 November 2023, she was interviewed and hired by Ming as an actor (on a self-employed basis) for the Experience. At the time of hiring, Ansley was not told which character she would play in the Ming merely commented on seeing her: “Oh good, we need little people with little egos”. At the time, Ansley did not think much of the comment.
  • Ming instructed Ansley to be at the Auckland Events Centre on the opening morning 30 minutes before the doors opened. Ming provided no training to Ansley before she arrived at the Experience. On arrival, Ming, in a panic, thrust an “Oompa Loompa” costume at Ansley and one other worker while saying, “here, this is for the dwarfs”. Ansley’s height is 5 feet and 1 Ansley, embarrassed, looked at the ground while several other workers looked on and laughed at her. She was desperate for the money and decided to wear the costume and prepare for work.
  • Ming then ushered Ansley to the “Chemistry and Candy” station where test tubes and a bunsen burner were set-up. There were two liquids in the test tubes – one contained a blue liquid and the other contained a red The tubes did not contain any labels identifying the substances in them.
  • Ming instructed Ansley to mix the red and blue liquids over the bunsen burner fire once the Experience opened and attendees walked by the station. He said that a small amount of smoke would arise from the bunsen He also told her that she “must not leave the station for any reason whatsoever” as “we can’t have an open fire flame without supervision”. Ming then rushed off to open the doors of the Experience.
  • The first few people through the doors included Ansley’s partner, Hemi, who wanted to surprise her at her first day of work in addition to an Instagram influencer, Miley. The two of them made their way over to Ansley’s station.
  • Ansley nervously looked down at the two test tubes in her hands. She then looked over to Ming, who mouthed “Do it!” while nodding. Ansley, shaking, took the two liquids and mixed them over the open flame on the bunsen At first, she heard a slight hissing noise from the burner. However, moments later, a large “BANG” rang out around the room and a mini explosion occurred in front of her producing large amounts of smoke. Ansley and Hemi screamed out when the explosion occurred. As the smoke settled, Ansley was visibly shaking and crying. She was covered in soot although she was not physically injured.
  • Ming ran over to Ansley and laughed manically while looking at the onlookers and stating “It’s all part of the Willy Wonka experience, folks!!”. Hemi, shocked, looked at Ming and said “What do you mean?!” Ming responded “You have to be prepared to take risks in this life, kid.” He then ran towards the doors to let more attendees in.
  • Hemi quickly grabbed Ansley’s hand and dragged her out of the Experience. They left and went home. However, unbeknownst to them, Miley had snapped a photograph of Ansley just as the explosion occurred. The photograph shows Ansley with a petrified look on her face, arms in the air with smoke starting to rise. Miley, thinking the photograph was hilarious, added a soundtrack to it from the “Oompa Loompa” scene in the movie with the lyric repeating “Oompa Loompa Dupty Doo, I’ve got a perfect puzzle for you, Oompa Loompa Dupty Doo, If you are wise you will listen to me” (up to 0.13 minutes of the youtube clip).1 Miley then posted the video on Instagram stating “Friends, don’t let your kids near this Oompa Loompa, she’s not safe!!” with the hashtags following “#trolltheOompaLoompa #careerlimitingmove #shortheightshortercareer”. Miley quickly amassed 500,000 views and 100,000 likes for the video. Ansley discovered the video two days after the explosion. She has not taken any steps to get it removed from Instagram.
  • Ansley was already suffering from sleepless nights, nightmares and panic attacks after the explosion. She often has flashbacks which cause her to break down into hysterics and After viewing the video, she has developed a phobia of leaving the house for fear of being recognised. Hemi is also suffering from sleepless nights and panic attacks after the explosion.
  • Ansley and Hemi have both sought our legal advice regarding their legal options against Ming and Miley. We address each in turn below.

Legal Advice – Ansley (Self-Employed Contractor)

  • In relation to Ming, Ansley has several intentional tort claims that are likely to be successful. Ming has intentionally harmed Ansley – or, at the very least, a court will impute intention given his level of recklessness. In this respect, Ansley is likely to succeed in obtaining compensatory damages against Ming for tortious assault, tortious battery, false imprisonment and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). We will rely on two very well-known cases, being Wilkinson v Downers and Stevenson v Basham, in support of Ansley’s case against Ming.
  • However, we do not recommend that Anlsey sue Ming for defamation regarding his comments about Ansley’s height in front of her In reality, Ansley is short and she consented to being an “Oompa Loompa”.
  • In relation to Miley, unfortunately, Miley is entitled to share content that she obtains in public spaces such as the one she took of Ansley at the Experience so Ansley cannot complain about any invasion of her Miley can also share her views on the photograph, including using the backing soundtrack, due to her fundamental right to freedom of speech as protected by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1982. We could write to Instagram and politely ask them to take down the video. However, we doubt that we will have any success.

Legal Advice – Hemi (Attendee)

  • Hemi is likely to have two successful causes of action against Ming, being in tortious assault and IIED. Again, we will rely on the same authorities we stated above for Ansley. Hemi should expect to receive a rather substantial compensatory damages award for the trauma he has experienced and continues to His award will be on par with what Ansley will receive in any court action against Ming. Ming should be punished and the court will not let him get away with his bad behaviour. The court will punish him for his actions.

Next Steps

  • We recommend that we urgently file proceedings on behalf of Ansley and Hemi against Ming as the organiser of the The faster we file the proceedings the quicker you both are likely to obtain some money to assist with overcoming this traumatic experience.
  • Please advise if you would like for us to proceed with drafting legal Please also do not hesitate to contact us if you have any queries.
  • We look forward to hearing from

Yours faithfully

Peta Peters

Partner Peters & Co.

For REF… Use: #getanswers2002642


Get This Answer for Study Help

If you need study assistance with writing your questions and answers, our professional assignment writing service is here to help!


Content Removal Request

If you are the original writer or copyright-authorized owner of this article and no longer wish to have, your work published on, then please Request for removal of this content.