The areas covered by the lecture contractual agreements under common law. The various topics covered in the lecture for contracts include the purpose of contracts, elements of contract law, terms of legality of a contract, how to identify a legally binding contract, the factors that make a contract valid, factors that render a contract invalid, who are eligible to enter into a contract, who cannot enter into a contract, and the damages involved in violating the terms of a contract. The lecture also covers the tort law. This part of the lecture constitutes to the identification and successful litigation in case of negligence.
The legal elements of the lecture are the six essential elements of a contract, the definitions of offer and acceptance, and differentiating willful misconduct from reckless misconduct. In addition, the lecture covers the classification of tort laws, negligence, duty of care, establishing breach of duty of care, damages caused by duty of care, causation, remedies for negligence, and defense against negligence.
The key cases discussed for the contract laws are,
Edwards v Skyways – The airline company provided assurance to one of its redundant pilots that they will double the ex gratia payment initially. The airline then refused to honor its commitment citing a change of policy by the company. The court ruled in favor of the pilot stating that held the contract agreement valid (Dr. Clarke, “Australian Law”).
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co – The Company launched a new product that supposedly prevented certain respiratory diseases known as the “Carbolic Smoke Ball”. The plaintiff contracted influenza after using the product. The advertisement promised a one hundred pound reward if the product did not work. The court ruled that the advertisement was legal enough since it endorsed the claim of anyone across the world. It declined to entertain the company’s stand that the advertisement is not legally binding.
Leonard v PepsiCo Inc. – The Company placed an advertisement that it would give away a sea harrier fighter plane for anyone who amasses seven million Pepsi points. The advertisement was a joke. The court upheld the company’s position stating that there was no guarantee for the receipt of a fighter jet by the company. Moreover, it establishes the humor element in the advertisement.
Horabin v. British Airways Corporation – The court establishes that there is no willful endangerment in this case and refused to allow charges against the deceased pilot of the aircraft.
Royal Victorian Aero Club v Commonwealth – The contention for damages towards willful recklessness against a trainee pilot was dismissed. The court held that the trainee pilot merely was not paying attention to details provided by his instructor earlier.
Korean Airlines Flight KE007 – The airline was shot down by the armed forces of the former Soviet Union that thought the airline was a spy plane that was spotted in the area. The black box information confirmed that the airline strayed into Russian however, it ascertained that the pilots were not aware of it (Dr. Clarke, “Australian Law”).
Newell v Canadian Pacific Airlines Ltd – The court upheld the plaintiff’s case that the airline stored the dogs along with substances that were toxic. The airline was charged with reckless misconduct.
Donaghue v Stevenson – The case involves the consumption of ginger beer that came in a bottle along with the remnants of a decomposed snail. The court held in favor of the plaintiff citing duty of care.
Nova Mink Ltd v Trans Canada Airlines – The plaintiff sued the airline for causing a mink to eat her young when the pilot flew at a certain altitude. The court ruled against the plaintiff contending that the pilot would not have knowledge of how the animal would react.
Wilson Aviation Ltd v P&T Aviation Pty Ltd – The court upheld the plaintiff’s claim that the maintenance company failed to provide adequate care for the aircrafts.
Imbree v McNeilly – This case significantly changed the landscape for willful negligence cases. A tragic case where a young boy was seriously injured when his friend, an inexperienced learner driver overturned the car. The court upheld the plaintiff’s case however, it declined to hold the defendant wholly responsible for the incident since the plaintiff’s son knew the driving competence of his friend (Dr. Clarke, “Australian Law”).
Bolton v Stone – A ball hit for a six injured a pedestrian outside the cricket ground. The judge ruled in favor of the defendant stating that the danger was foreseeable and yet, the probability of injury from a ball leaving the ground was limited.
Qantas Airways Ltd v Cameron – The airline operated with nonsmoking and smoking seats in close proximity of each other. Cameron, one of the discomforted passengers sued the airlines. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff since the airline failed in its duty of care (Dr. Clarke, “Australian Law”).
The key points to the lecture indicate the necessity to determine the cause of breach in contract and try to avoid ambiguity while providing information on advertisements. The advertisement by Pepsi & Co was irresponsible since it was a large enough corporation to afford giving away an ageing fighter jet. There is a requirement for additional responsibility for those filing lawsuits based on emotions than the letter of the law. Civil law overruled common law in providing relief for the actual victims. It also protected the corporate interests against filovirus lawsuits.
Works Cited
Dr. Clarke, Julie. Australian Law, 2013. Web. 31 January 2016.
