BSL204 Exclusion Clause Assignment Sample

• Subject Code : BSL204
• University : Murdoch University My Assignment Services is not sponsored or endorsed by this college or university.
• Subject Name : Law

Tourism and Hospitality Law in Australia

Table of contents

Question 1: Negligence.

Question 2: Contract

Question 3: Contract

Question 1: Negligence

Issues

The issue is regarding Tourism and Hospitality Laws in which three students Mason, Ying and Kenny have visited in Rottnest Island in which Kenny had a serious head injury while diving into the water by the submerged rock ledge. He raised the argument as he claims he would never dive in water if some warning was provided. On the other hand, Ying was also had similar issues in which she wants to sue Town of Cottesloe as while she was body surfing between flags which has been situated from 60 to 70 metres from the beach and she has been neck stroked by a fibreglass surfboard. She has claimed that the place is not proper for surfing and it has not been warned by any person. On the other hand, the third case is about Mason who is trying to sue the City of Glenelg as he has dumped by a wave in a wave in the shoreline which has resulted in him to be a tetraplegic. For this reason, he claims that authority could alert the travellers about the dumpers of the sea.

Rule

This case of negligence in the tort conducted on civilians and in this case, the reckless action of certain authorities has conducted such action which has caused serious injury to the people. In case of Mason, the report is about the breach of duty of care by the City of Glenelg, application of Law of Negligence and Limitation of Liability Act 2008 (NI) can be conducted in which the influence of limited liability, the law of negligence, public authority and their liabilities, good Samaritans and volunteer protection and others have been included[1]. On the other hand, in case of Ying also, this act is applicable and the part 5 of this act included the damage recovery provision that is to be provided by the concerned public authority due to any personal harm of damage. The town of Cottesloe needs to provide the recovery damage within $5,000 to $500,000 AUD. Along with this, in case of Kenny also, the breach of negligence tort has been recorded and similar legislation is to be applied.

Analysis

The above-mentioned regulations can be incorporated as some of the instances have been noticed in similar cares. Such as in case of Sampco Pty Ltd v Wurth, the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) (CLA) has been incorporated as causation under section 5D (1) has been claimed by the plaintiff as Ms Wurth has identified that her right foot has been unguarded drain way in a car park owned by Sampco [2]. On the other hand, in case of Adeels Palace v Moubarak case has been recorded in which the defendant has been proved guilty and as a breach of care of duty, due to the above-mentioned act as well as Liquor Act 1982 (NSW). Kenny had an authentic head injury while bouncing into the water by the brought down stone edge[3][4].

Ying was also had near issues in which she needs to sue Town of Cottesloe as while she was body surfing among standards and She has affirmed that the spot isn't proper for surfing and it has not been forewarned by any person. Bricklayer who is endeavouring to sue the City of Glenelg as he has dumped by a wave in a wave in the shoreline which has come about him to being a tetraplegic. Subsequently, he ensures that authority could frighten the adventurers about the dumpers of the sea. Therefore, in the case of Mason, Ying and Kenny also the breach of the card of duty could be considered under these acts under Tourism and Hospitality Law. This could be also supported by Nagle v Rottnest Island Authority case in which one of the employees of the Island's authority has been injured during taking dive in the marine water[5]. The authority has been ordered to take serious action against the dispute and provide compensation.

Conclusion

Therefore, all the three authorities are liable to provide treatment cost as well as compensation to all three parties. Kenny had a genuine head injury while jumping into the water by the lowered stone edge. Ying was additionally had comparative issues in which she needs to sue Town of Cottesloe as while she was body surfing among banners and She has asserted that the spot isn't appropriate for surfing and it has not been cautioned by any individual. Bricklayer who is attempting to sue the City of Glenelg as he has dumped by a wave in a wave in the shoreline which has come about him to being a tetraplegic. Thus, he guarantees that authority could alarm the explorers about the dumpers of the ocean.

Question 2: Contract

Issues

This is the case of contract breaching in which Cindy is to be appointed as a restaurant managerial post. In spite of providing her offer letter and receiving an acceptance letter from her, the authority has denied the offer of employment. The issue has occurred due to a mismanagement of the company in which another person named Henry has been employed as his letter of acceptance has been received by the company earlier. For this reason, Cindy the main plaintiff is trying to file a legal case in order to get justice in the case of breach of contract.

Rule

As per the contract Law, contract formation is to be done by ensuring capacity, intention, certainty, consideration, acceptance and offer. However, in the current case, all the essential elements have been met while pursuing the contract in an effective way although, due to the improper company’s management and illicit activities. Therefore, the Corporations Act 2001 can be imposed on the parties[6]. With the help of this act, Cindy can claim about employment in the restaurant as a similar post. Otherwise, she could be provided with compensation due to the breaching of the contract. Along with this, the amendments of Employment & Labour Law 2020 are to be also applied in this case in which the contract must be considered by both of the parties. Application of the laws will help Cindy to file her complaint against the Restaurant as well as on the certain employees due to falsification and breaching of contract. The circumstance of agreement breaking in which Cindy is to be named as a restaurant managerial post. Notwithstanding giving her offer letter and getting

Analysis

This type of breach of contract has been noticed in different cases in which the contract has been breached. In case of Baltic Shipping Company v Dillon, the plaintiff has been provided with proper compensation due to the damage of the property[7]. The amendments and consideration of this case could have been incorporated in the current case. On the other hand, in case of Lloyd v Scenic Tours Pty Ltd, the amendments have been fulfilled with the help of Fair Trading Act 1987 in case of the issue of breach of contract[8]. affirmation letter from her, the authority has blocked the proposition from asserting business. The issue has happened as a result of a bobble of the association wherein another person named Henry has been used as his letter of affirmation has been gotten by the association previously.

In this manner, Cindy the principal outraged gathering is endeavouring to report a legal case in order to get value because of the enter of understanding. Therefore, in the current case also, incorporation of the act can enhance the outcome and the action can be taken in an effective way. the circumstance of agreement breaking in which Cindy is to be named as a restaurant regulatory post. Despite giving her offer letter and getting affirmation letter from her, the authority has blocked the proposition from asserting business. The issue has happened as a result of a bobble of the association wherein another person named Henry has been used as his letter of affirmation has been gotten by the association previously. Along these lines, Cindy the essential annoyed gathering is endeavouring to record a legitimate case in order to get value by virtue of entering of understanding.

Conclusion

Henceforth, the concluded outcome is this is the situation of contract breaking in which Cindy is to be named by as an eatery administrative post. Regardless of giving her an offer letter and getting acknowledgement letter from her, the authority has precluded the proposal from claiming business. The issue has happened because of a fumble of the organization wherein someone else named Henry has been utilized as his letter of acknowledgement has been gotten by the organization before. Therefore, Cindy, the fundamental offended party is attempting to document a lawful case so as to get equity on account of penetrating of agreement.

Question 3: Contract

Issues

The main issue, in this case, is the inclusion of the ultimate exclusion of liability in the contract. The claim of the plaintiff is to exclude all types of risks and issues associated with the ferry ride. The Ultimate Excursion is to be liable for the conducting accidents that have been caused due to their negligence, this is the claim of Stephen who is the plaintiff of the cause. The sign at the entry of the boat terminal contained an arrangement barring Ultimate from hazard for claims rising up out of any setback or scene where a voyager included a seat on the boat. While making an excursion to Taronga Zoo, Stephen got away from his seat to recoup his wireless which he dropped on the floor. He staggered and fell creation injury to his head. Stephen sued Ultimate for a break of understanding yet Ultimate fought reliance on the shirking arrangement.

Rule

The liability of business might be excluded of might be limited under certain constraints. By showing proper clause and risks which is prevailing in the ferry, the contract of exclusion should have been prepared. As per Section 64 of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), the consumer's right must be considered in case of conducting any exclusion from any contract. Otherwise, the Section 64A ACL permits modification of rights can be incorporated in which the change in a certain level can be conducted. In order to provide the consumers effective experience of travelling, hospitality and safety, this contract inclusion is required, in which negligence and issues from the company's site must be considered while providing support. Adjustment of rights can be fused in which the adjustment at a certain level can be directed. So as to give the customers successful experience of voyaging, friendliness and security, this agreement consideration is required, in which carelessness and issues from the organization's sight must be thought of while offering help.

Analysis

The claim of compensation and change in the contract can be incorporated in the current case in which the contract exclusion is not done in an effective way. In a similar case, L’Estrange v Graucob, the exclusion of sale agreement has been noticed in which the case of breach of warranty has been incorporated[9]. Therefore, in the current case also, the breach of warranty case might be incorporated by Stephen in order to consider the statement of warranty. Apart from this, in case of the Luna Park (NSW) Ltd v Tramways Advertising Pty Ltd the action has been taken against the exclusion of full contract[10]. The board was not displayed proper contract in an effective way. For this reason, in the current case, the inclusion of the contract in a partial way requires to be incorporated.

Conclusion

Thus, with the help of effective contract inclusion by Australian Consumer Law as well as Tourism and Hospitality Law, claim of inclusion of contract can be conducted by Stephen. The principal issue for this situation is the incorporation of extreme rejection of obligation in the agreement. The case of the offended party is to reject a wide range of dangers and issues related to the ship ride. The Ultimate Excursion is to be subject of the directing mishaps that have been caused because of their carelessness, this is the case of Stephen who is the offended party of the reason. The board was not shown legitimate agreement in a powerful manner. Thus, in the present case, the consideration of the agreement in an incomplete route requires to be consolidated.

References for Exclusion Clause

Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak; Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Bou Najem [2009] HCA 48 (Adeels) https://www.mondaq.com/australia/insurance-laws-and-products/90224/adeels-palace-pty-ltd-v-moubarak-high-court-of-australia-reigns-in-the-scope-of-duty-of-care

Baltic Shipping Company v Dillon (1993) 176 CLR 344 https://lawcasesummaries.com/knowledge-base/baltic-shipping-v-dillon-1993-176-clr-344/

legal.thomsonreuters.com.au (2020) Australian Commercial Law 32e, Retrieved on: 3 May, 2020, From: https://legal.thomsonreuters.com.au/australian-commercial-law-32e/productdetail/126502

Law of Negligence and Limitation of Liability Act 2008 (NI), Retrieved on: 3 May, 2020, From: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016Q00058

L'Estrange v Graucob [1934] 2 KB 394 https://www.australiancontractlaw.com/cases/lestrange.html

Lloyd v Scenic Tours Pty Ltd (General) [2010] NSWCTTT 591 (13 December 2010) https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWCTTT/2010/591.html

Luna Park (NSW) Ltd v Tramways Advertising Pty Ltd High Court of Australia (1938) 61 CLR 286; [1938] HCA 66 https://www.australiancontractlaw.com/cases/lunapark.html

Nagle v Rottnest Island Authority [1993] HCA 76 https://lawcasesummaries.com/knowledge-base/nagle-v-rottnest-island-authority-1993-hca-76/

Sampco Pty Ltd v Wurth [2015] NSWCA 117 https://mccabecurwood.com.au/causation-and-domestic-assistance-assessing-wurth-sampco-pty-ltd-v-wurth-2015-nswca-117/

[1] legislation.gov.au (2020) Law of Negligence and Limitation of Liability Act 2008 (NI), Retrieved on 3 May 2020, From https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016Q00058

[2] Sampco Pty Ltd v Wurth [2015] NSWCA 117 https://mccabecurwood.com.au/causation-and-domestic-assistance-assessing-wurth-sampco-pty-ltd-v-wurth-2015-nswca-117/

[3] Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak; Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Bou Najem [2009] HCA 48 (Adeels) https://www.mondaq.com/australia/insurance-laws-and-products/90224/adeels-palace-pty-ltd-v-moubarak-high-court-of-australia-reigns-in-the-scope-of-duty-of-care

[5] Nagle v Rottnest Island Authority [1993] HCA 76 https://lawcasesummaries.com/knowledge-base/nagle-v-rottnest-island-authority-1993-hca-76/

[6] legal.thomsonreuters.com.au (2020) Australian Commercial Law 32e, Retrieved on 3 May 2020, From https://legal.thomsonreuters.com.au/australian-commercial-law-32e/productdetail/126502

[7] Baltic Shipping Company v Dillon (1993) 176 CLR 344 https://lawcasesummaries.com/knowledge-base/baltic-shipping-v-dillon-1993-176-clr-344/

[8] Lloyd v Scenic Tours Pty Ltd (General) [2010] NSWCTTT 591 (13 December 2010) https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWCTTT/2010/591.html

[9] L'Estrange v Graucob [1934] 2 KB 394 https://www.australiancontractlaw.com/cases/lestrange.html

[10] Luna Park (NSW) Ltd v Tramways Advertising Pty Ltd High Court of Australia (1938) 61 CLR 286; [1938] HCA 66 https://www.australiancontractlaw.com/cases/lunapark.html

Remember, at the center of any academic work, lies clarity and evidence. Should you need further assistance, do look up to our Law Assignment Help