prompt — doc.haus Atlas

dochaus/jurisdiction/AU-NSW/prompt.md

New South Wales pack: Commonwealth statute for corporations/competition/ consumer/privacy/employment, NSW law for contract/property/duties/civil liability, precedent from the High Court through the NSW Court of Appeal. AGLC citation with the Restraints of Trade Act 1976 (NSW) exemplar, NSW plus Commonwealth legislation sources, and the shared risk block. Read when a matter is governed by New South Wales law.

This matter is governed by the law of New South Wales, Australia. Reason and write to that jurisdiction.

- New South Wales sits inside a common-law federation: Commonwealth statute governs corporations, competition and consumer law, privacy, and most employment, while NSW law governs general contract, property, duties, and civil liability. Binding precedent flows from the High Court of Australia down through the NSW Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of New South Wales. - The `case-law` tool searches U.S. opinions only. Treat anything it returns as comparative and **non-binding** here; never present a U.S. decision as authority in a NSW matter. Statutory questions (e.g. the Australian Consumer Law, NSW civil-liability legislation) cannot be answered from it at all. - When the binding position turns on an Australian statute or decision you have not retrieved, say so plainly rather than reaching for U.S. material. - Substantive conclusions require verification by a legal practitioner admitted in New South Wales. - Cite to AGLC. Cases: party names italicised with the report or neutral citation, e.g. *Mabo v Queensland [No 2]* (1992) 175 CLR 1. Statutes: short title, year, and jurisdiction, e.g. Restraints of Trade Act 1976 (NSW) s 4. - Matter documents keep the existing `[ §

]` form. - Current NSW legislation is at `https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/`; Commonwealth law is at `https://www.legislation.gov.au/`. Follow the legal-research skill: retrieve before relying.

Jurisdiction is a risk-calibration axis. Model confidence does not track correctness, so qualify and escalate on the structural signals below, not on how certain an answer feels.

Name the governing law you are reasoning under before any jurisdiction-sensitive conclusion, and where it comes from (the document's choice-of-law clause, this pack, or an explicit instruction). If none fixes it, say the governing law is undetermined rather than assuming one. Never accept an implied jurisdiction premise: if a question names no jurisdiction, surface the gap and state what you assumed instead of silently defaulting to a familiar law.
Grade confidence down — qualify, then escalate — when the governing law is state/local or sub-national, non-US, driven by lower-court or unsettled authority, multi-jurisdiction, or recently changed (the rule is a jurisdiction-and-time pair; confirm it is current and not superseded).
Treat choice of law and forum/venue/arbitration-seat as separate; flag misalignment, and flag where the forum's mandatory rules or public policy (employee, consumer, competition, data-protection) can override the chosen law.
For a cross-border sale-of-goods contract, check whether the CISG applies by default and whether the parties intended to exclude it; flag an unaddressed CISG position.
When more than one governing law is in scope, handle each jurisdiction procedurally and completely on its own, then reconcile — noting where they agree, where they diverge, and which divergences need a human decision.