- Read and consider Dollars & Sense Finance v Nathan  NZSC 20 and then answer all of the seven evenly weighted short-answer questions below. In answering each, allocate approximately 400 words per question.
Note that while the questions all relate to the New Zealand Supreme Court decision Dollars & Sense Finance v Nathan  NZSC 20 which is available via the Moodle subject page and at http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZSC/2008/20.html good answers will go beyond that judgment and provide evidence further reading and research.
What property interest did Dollars & Sense register under the Torrens system and how did it acquire that interest? How did that interest relate to Mrs Nathan? Why do you think Dollars & Sense registered its interest? (5 marks)
Explain the basis upon which Rodney Nathan was found to be Dollars & Sense’s agent. Did ratification play any role? (5 marks)
What was found to be the scope of Rodney Nathan’s authority? Did the act of forgery fall within the scope of that authority? (5 marks)
How could Rodney Nathan’s fraud be described as both a tort and a crime? Who was/were the victim/s of his fraud? What role does fraud play in the operation of the Torrens system? (5 marks)
What is meant by vicarious liability in agency law? Why is it referred to as ‘strict’ liability? How did that concept apply here? (5 marks)
What was the nature of the difference of opinion between the dissenting judge of the Court of Appeal (William Young P) and the other judges? Why was the issue so critical in the resolution of the dispute between the parties? (5 marks)
Do you consider the outcome arrived at in this case is fair and correct? How do you think this case would be decided in Australia? If you consider the result in Australia would differ from that in the New Zealand Supreme Court, which do you prefer? (5 marks)