Individual Part - final PDF

Preview

Summary

final...

Description

Individual Part To find out what business activities of the defendant result in the defendant being involved in the legal dispute, it is necessary to consider the fact. In this case the main reason lead to AusVac failed to fulfill contractual obligation with government is temperature of vaccines. According to Logistex, there existed “Limitation of Liability”, however AusVac denied. As a transportation company, there are many uncertainty elements may affect the merchandises. Considering this, Logistex should assign responsibility and delegated authority to deal appropriately with the organization's goals, objectives, operating functions, and regulatory requirements prior. Due to Logistex did not clearly define areas of responsibility which caused Logistex involved in the legal dispute. In the case of Toll (FGCT) Pty Limited v Alphapharm Pty Limited [2004] HCA 52 the defendant in that case has similarity in material facts thus our case can learn from it. In Toll v Alphaparm that terms are included in the written contract which is same as the contract between AusVac and Loistex. The director of Logistex emailed that there was not any “Limitation of Liabilities which was deemed to be an informal oral condition instead of the formal written contract. Because the Terms and Conditions AusVac agreed is industry standard. Thus, it is necessary to to make the contract detailly and clearly to avoid the risks. The dispute can be solved through mediation which is a combination between the court and the arbitration. Parties may show their dispute via mediation to mediators. Mediators are always be unbiased who try to identify the requirements of both parties and helps them reach an agreement. However, if the mediation fails, the parties must turn to court or arbitration in the end. The advantage of mediation is quick and confidential. Parties can solve their conflicts with a little time and the information will not be disclosed or revealed during mediation. Plaintiff may raise legal defenses that Logistex did not provide any notice to AusVac. In the case of Toll (FGCT) Pty Limited v Alphapharm Pty Limited [2004] HCA 52, it was determined that the sufficient notice be given of the terms and conditions which means the notice did not need to provide to plaintiff. This is similar in material facts between Toll (FGCT) and our case. Considering this, AusVac may put forward notice to argue with Logistex....