Suing the airline and employee for improper security features on the aircraft
Billy is legally allowed to take action against Veronica is the current case and in the current case it may be inferred that Billy is having an action against Veronica and he may sue her for the damages caused to him. Majorly the suing or legal action would be bought against the airline rather than an employee. Therefore in the present case both Veronica and the Airline may be sued on account of improper security features at the aircraft. As the health of the passenger is the priority of the airline therefore the airline is responsible if the passenger gets harmed and the passenger shall be liable to a just jurisdiction.
Veronica is a trained air hostess and they are trained to take precautions during the flight and are required to adhere to rules and regulations which are set under the law. The allegation of case of negligence may be bought against Veronica that she was not taking care of the passage despite being aware that she was carrying a hot coffee. Further under Montreal Convention there is a requirement to compensate the victims of air disaster for delay and any damage caused to the passenger. Thus, the airline/ veronica may be alleged for negligence of duty and sued.
There have been many cases in the history wherein airline has been sued for such action. Some of them include case of Harris count suing the United Airlines for spill of hot coffee for $ 170,000 in compensation for damages. There have been similar instances in Qatar Airways and other airlines. EU court has duly judged that broad airlines have been liable for coffee spills onboard. The case is also similar to infamous law suit against McDonalds in 1992.
The Veronica Employer shall be legally responsible for defending the action suit as case shall be bought against the company rather than Veronica as an individual for seeking compensation
for damages. The Employer shall be legally responsible for defending the case and in case of loss of case to pay compensatory damages claim to the victim.
In case the said action was intentional and not an accident on account of negligence than Montreal convention shall not apply and Billy has to sue the employee directly for personal grudge. Thus, the airline can prove that the action was not on account of negligence and thus airline may not be responsible for compensatory claims.
There are six elements to a legally enforceable contract which encompass offer, acceptance of the offer, consideration, intention ad idem, capacity and legality. In the present case the offer has been initiated by Larry through advertisement and the offer has been accepted by Jack. The compensation of $ 15 has been duly paid as advertised and the intention ad idem was present in the case. Also there has been capacity as Larry has the watch to deliver and the contract has legal purpose and object to be enforceable and thus the contract is legally enforceable.
Yes it matter that the watch was worth considerable more than $ 150 and same amount to unfairness and the court has the power to remedy such mistake. Further unilateral mistakes may be remedied in case one party knew of the error and thus no legal contract may be formed. Accordingly, higher price of the product than displayed shall be a critical factor.
Requirement for compensation under Montreal Convention
Yes, Larry has legal basis to state that the contract is void form the initial stages stating that other party was duly aware of the fact that the mistake of the seller and the mistake was unilateral. The above facts are in alignment with the judgement of Singapore Court of Appeal made in 2005 in Chwee Kin Keong -v- Digilandmall. Thus, if the other party is aware of the mistake and ostensibly enter the contract then such contract is void.
Larry has to establish the fact that it was an unilateral mistake and the price of the product is worth more than the price printed on the news paper and the last requirement is that other party to the agreement must be aware of such mistake to make the contract non binding. Thus, there are three requirement in the present case i.e. there must be a mistake which is unilateral and the price of the product must be much higher than displayed and the other party must be aware of such mistake.
Yes, there are many cases to assist the argument. The above facts are in alignment with the judgement of Singapore Court of Appeal made in 2005 in Chwee Kin Keong -v- Digilandmall and the case related to claim for delay beyond the contracted time for unloading of ship which was required to be calculated at a specified rate.
There are six elements to a legally enforceable contract which encompass offer, acceptance of the offer, consideration, intention ad idem, capacity and legality. In the present case the offer has been initiated by Larry through advertisement and the offer has been accepted by Jack. The compensation of $ 15 has been duly paid as advertised and the intention ad idem was present in the case. Also there has been capacity as Larry has the watch to deliver and the contract has legal purpose and object to be enforceable and thus the contract is legally enforceable.
Yes it matter that the watch was worth considerable more than $ 150 and same amount to unfairness and the court has the power to remedy such mistake. Further unilateral mistakes may be remedied in case one party knew of the error and thus no legal contract may be formed. Accordingly, higher price of the product than displayed shall be a critical factor.
Yes, Larry has legal basis to state that the contract is void form the initial stages stating that other party was duly aware of the fact that the mistake of the seller and the mistake was unilateral. The above facts are in alignment with the judgement of Singapore Court of Appeal made in 2005 in Chwee Kin Keong -v- Digilandmall. Thus, if the other party is aware of the mistake and ostensibly enter the contract then such contract is void.
Larry has to establish the fact that it was an unilateral mistake and the price of the product is worth more than the price printed on the news paper and the last requirement is that other party to the agreement must be aware of such mistake to make the contract non binding. Thus, there are three requirement in the present case i.e. there must be a mistake which is unilateral and the price of the product must be much higher than displayed and the other party must be aware of such mistake.
Yes, there are many cases to assist the argument. The above facts are in alignment with the judgement of Singapore Court of Appeal made in 2005 in Chwee Kin Keong -v- Digilandmall and the case related to claim for delay beyond the contracted time for unloading of ship which was required to be calculated at a specified rate.
In terms of ACL, any person who acquire the goods or service for an amount not exceeding $ 40000 shall be regarded as consumer. Further, the said threshold has been amended to 100000. Further, there is no monetary threshold in case where the goods were acquired for personal, domestic or household use. Thus, usage of car for personal purpose shall make her consumer.
The sections which can be applied are Division 1 subdivision 1 A section 58 which relates to guarantees as to repairs and spare parts, Sec59 guarantees as to express warranties
In the present case the exclusion clause shall cause a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract and the court may see the same as unfair. Further, the terms may not likely to be seen as unfair when consumers understand when and how they are likely to be affected from such terms and there is a reimbursement model associated.
Fiduciary duty breach occurs when a person or an entity places trust, confidence and reliance on another to act on his behalf and he breaches the trust by acting on his own interest rather than that of the other person. The relationship is that of an agent and principal and the breach relates to profiting at the employer expense as Bill is authorising extra payment without authorisation.
Section 13176(3)- Applies to individual penalty upto 1.05 Million
Section 13176(4)- Applies to company penalty upto 10.05 Million
Section 1311B(4)- Applies to individual penalty upto 945,000
Section 1311C(3)- Applies to company penalty upto 9.45 Million
Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) v Cassimatis (No. 8) [2016] FCA 1023
In the said case there has been found breach of fiduciary duty.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
