Problem-based Assignment
Introduction
Kati (K) parked her car in the valet parking service of the Eastfield Shopping Centre (ESC) due to the stormy weather, but did not expected that the water coming from the leaking proof of the ESC and the opening roof of the car flooded it. There are two announcements relating to the valet parking service which K did not take notice of. K had to pay the repairing fees and was unable to use the cars for six months. Moreover, because K left her car overnight at the valet parking service, the ESC requires administration fees collected from K. This essay examines the main legal issues categorized into two parts, which are whether K could make up her losses and dose K have to pay the administration fees. This …show more content…
In terms of whether the exclusionary clauses are incorporated, they are required to be given prior to the contract formed and there are supposed to be extra notices for harsh terms. The ESC placed the large and prominent sign of clauses at the entrance and K should have seen it easily before the contract between her and the ESC made, which means that the exclusion clauses could be binding pursuant to provisions contained herein. Therefore, although the clause might be harsh to some extent, the sufficient notice still contributed to the availability of applying it to the …show more content…
In Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) s 5(a), whether or not K will have a cause of action for damages depends on whether the factual causation and remoteness are confirmed. The person who bears the losses and ask for compensation must provide evidence of losses otherwise only nominal damages awarded. It has been regulated that plaintiff must evidence the loss or damage was caused by the breach of contract otherwise the defendant is not liable to pay. ‘But for’ test reflects the conclusion in this situation. K’s car would have not been crashed if A gave the due care while he was parking K’s car and K would have not needed to use alternative transport during six months but for the ESC’s breach of the due care term of the contract. For the remoteness, this is then an issue as to whether damages claimed by the plaintiff are too remote or not, being loss that arises naturally from the breach according to the usual course of things or loss that may reasonably have been in the contemplation of both parties at the time when the contract was made as a probable result of the breach. As the fact that due to ESC’s failure to exercise due care to K’s car and breached the contract, K’s car may suffer some damage and consequently she would not be able to use it in condition that the car is damaged. Therefore the losses arose naturally from the breach and are not
Introduction
Kati (K) parked her car in the valet parking service of the Eastfield Shopping Centre (ESC) due to the stormy weather, but did not expected that the water coming from the leaking proof of the ESC and the opening roof of the car flooded it. There are two announcements relating to the valet parking service which K did not take notice of. K had to pay the repairing fees and was unable to use the cars for six months. Moreover, because K left her car overnight at the valet parking service, the ESC requires administration fees collected from K. This essay examines the main legal issues categorized into two parts, which are whether K could make up her losses and dose K have to pay the administration fees. This …show more content…
In terms of whether the exclusionary clauses are incorporated, they are required to be given prior to the contract formed and there are supposed to be extra notices for harsh terms. The ESC placed the large and prominent sign of clauses at the entrance and K should have seen it easily before the contract between her and the ESC made, which means that the exclusion clauses could be binding pursuant to provisions contained herein. Therefore, although the clause might be harsh to some extent, the sufficient notice still contributed to the availability of applying it to the …show more content…
In Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) s 5(a), whether or not K will have a cause of action for damages depends on whether the factual causation and remoteness are confirmed. The person who bears the losses and ask for compensation must provide evidence of losses otherwise only nominal damages awarded. It has been regulated that plaintiff must evidence the loss or damage was caused by the breach of contract otherwise the defendant is not liable to pay. ‘But for’ test reflects the conclusion in this situation. K’s car would have not been crashed if A gave the due care while he was parking K’s car and K would have not needed to use alternative transport during six months but for the ESC’s breach of the due care term of the contract. For the remoteness, this is then an issue as to whether damages claimed by the plaintiff are too remote or not, being loss that arises naturally from the breach according to the usual course of things or loss that may reasonably have been in the contemplation of both parties at the time when the contract was made as a probable result of the breach. As the fact that due to ESC’s failure to exercise due care to K’s car and breached the contract, K’s car may suffer some damage and consequently she would not be able to use it in condition that the car is damaged. Therefore the losses arose naturally from the breach and are not