Bullfrog Case Summary

2651 Words11 Pages
1,200 words / Weight: 15% Due on Week 8 (23rd April 2013) Facts of the case: Jenny > is a keen skateboarding competitor. > Has competed in many women’s skateboarding competitions in Australia and overseas. > Competing for the first time in the new Surfers Paradise Skateboarding Classic (paid the competition fee). > She thinks she has a very good chance of doing well this year and even winning the main prize. 1st day > practised 2nd day > relaxed and went sightseeing with Heidi. > Visited Mount Bullfrog (main tourist attractions and they have not seen before). > Before they pay the entrance fee, Jenny notices a large sign at the main entrance. The Sign says: *** ‘Welcome to Mount Bullfrog’…show more content…
And in so doing the validity of the exclusion case declared by Mount Bullfrog Reserve will be examined. The question here is whether the park is properly liable for injury incurred by Jenny while making way to the park’s main attraction area. In order to offer good, sound advice, the element of the park’s notice board being a sufficient notice as to the existence of the exclusion clause needs to be looked into. Tort of negligence cannot be applied in this case, because the neighborhood principle is taken into consideration only when there is an existence of a duty of care. Law Chapelton v Barry Urban District Council shows that unsigned exclusion clauses need to be clearly defined to a reasonable person. Another case highlighting the need for exclusions to be clearly informed to the other party is the case of Causer v Browne. As for the case of White v John Warwick & Co Ltd the court held that the company providing defective product is liable for their negligence. If reasonably sufficient notice is given as to the existence of an exemption clause, then it is accepted by the courts that that clause becomes parts of the contract. The case that set this dictum, and which laid our the guidelines for testing the reasonableness and sufficiency of the notice…show more content…
The question is whether the competition is covered by statutes implying that refund of competition fee is attainable should the competitor be unfit to take on the competition. Jenny cannot take the law of frustration in consideration, because it will only bring an advantage to the opposite party, and not to her, hence the law of frustration sets aside the contract. Law There are three reasons why terms may be implied into a contract. First, where a term is required to give business efficacy to the contract ­ these terms are generally known as terms implied by fact. Secondly, where terms flow from the obligations of the common law or statute ­ these terms are called terms implied by law. Finally, where terms are implied by regular

More about Bullfrog Case Summary

Open Document