Dear Junior Associate I've just been on the phone to a new client. His name is Kevin, and he wants to see a lawyer for legal advice. I've made an appointment for tomorrow but prior to that, I need you to do some research on the matter for me as I am stretched for time. Here are some notes I managed to take down on my telephone conference call with Kevin this morning: Kevin is one of the partners of the business organisation, 'OzEvents,' that organises big events, which can range from concerts, weddings, food festivals, and fairs. He is assisted by his partner, Jane, who is also the chief financial officer of his business. Jane is a certified public accountant and has already been working as such for more than 10 years when she accepted Kevin's offer to work with him. Kevin has contracted with his sister Marie's company, Big Equipment4U, Inc., which leases various equipment for use in concerts and other big events. Kevin has previously contracted with Marie's company and never had a problem with the equipment the company leases. For this particular instance, the following items were leased, which are also listed in Annex A of the contract: o Band Lighting LED package o Square Portable Staging System o Amplifier o Loud speaker o Tent o Intelligent lighting systems with lighting control desks o Smoke and fog visual effects Kevin has shared a copy of his contract with Big Equipment4U, Inc., which he notes has the same terms and conditions as the previous contracts he has entered into with Marie's company. The following are some of the clauses contained in the contract: 1. Definitions Equipment shall refer to the list of equipment in Annex A of this contract. Fee shall refer to the amount provided in Annex B of this contract, subject to any adjustments to be agreed upon in writing by the Lessor and Lessee. Lessor shall refer to Big Equipment4U, Inc. Lessee shall refer to Kevin McCloud or OzEvents. 2. Services The Lessor will lease the Equipment to the Lessee in consideration for the Lessee paying the Fee to the Lessor, subject to the provisions of this contract. The Lessor guarantees that the Equipment is of acceptable quality and/or fit for the particular purpose disclosed by the Lessee in Annex C of this contract. The Lessor will use reasonable endeavours to provide repair services to ensure that the Equipment leased remain fit and working by the dates agreed by the Parties.

The repair services will be performed by the employees, contactors or agents that the Lessor may choose as most appropriate to carry out the repair services. The Lessor shall make available its repair services personnel during the event date at the event site. The Lessor and the Lessee may include any other Equipment and/or services agreed by them in writing from time to time. 3. Limitation of Liability The Lessor is not liable to the Lessee in contract, tort, negligence, breach of statutory duty or otherwise for any loss, damage, costs or expenses of any nature whatsoever incurred or suffered by the Lessee of an indirect or consequential nature including any economic loss or other loss of turnover, profits, business or goodwill. On the day of the event, which was the world famous, Melbourne International Food and Wine Festival, everything started to run smoothly. Two hours into the event, a loud sound was heard at the back of the stage. Heavy smoke then came out. Suddenly, the lights and sound failed. The members of the rock band, Block Baby Rock, which was then playing at the time, got confused, and during the chaos, the lead guitarist, Jason Blake, lost his balance and slipped, thus severely injuring his right arm. This severe injury to Jason Blake's arm made him unable to play guitar anymore. This eventually led to Jason's severe depression and for Block Baby Rock to disband. An investigation was made, and it was found the incident was caused by a short circuit due to a defective spare part of the smoke and fog visual effects equipment. It was also revealed that Big Equipment4U, Inc. failed to check all the equipment before turning them over to Kevin. Worse, Marie forgot to send any repair service personnel at the event site. Nonetheless, Big Equipment4U argues that Clause 3 on Limitation of Liability prevents Kevin from recovering anything. Kevin revealed that he has additional issues, but he is still in the process of gathering additional information and documents. For the meantime, he would like you to look into what he has given and help him identify any liability against him or claims that may be filed against Big Equipment4U and/or Marie. I am only interested in the legal issues arising from common law. Thank you for your help. Kind regards Tom Hastings Tom Hastings Principal, The Legal Counsel Inc.

Dear Junior Associate I've just finished my meeting with Kevin. He provided us additional information about the events that transpired. Since you are already in this case, I would highly appreciate if you can draft our advice to Kevin, taking into account the additional information he has provided. Here are some notes I managed to take down: Kevin has always understood that the clause on 'Services' is an important term. Although he did not communicate this to Marie on this particular occasion, he pointed out that in a previous equipment hire about three months ago for a wedding event, he told Marie that it is very important that the equipment should be of acceptable quality and fit for the particular purpose disclosed. Marie replied, 'I am your sister. I will never let you down. I guarantee you that my equipment is the best in Australia.' Marie has sent Kevin demand letters, asking him to pay $10000 for the equipment hire, plus the amount for the damaged smoke and fog visual effects. Kevin is willing to pay Marie for the equipment, but he argues that $10000 is way too high, considering what happened. Furthermore, he remembered that Marie has subsequently agreed to a reduction of $1000 for the fees. This was not noted in Annex B of the contract. The only record he has is a Facebook messenger chat (reproduced below):

Kevin also learned that Jason Blake has been suffering from a rare bone disease which makes his bones prone to fractures. He feels sorry for Jason, but he is wondering if this finding can somehow affect your legal analysis. Kevin also learned that Jason Blake has tweeted about the event: Since the tweet, Kevin's business has gone down. Nobody wants to engage OzEvents in any event. Since the tweet, Kevin's business has gone down. Nobody wants to hire OzEvents to organise and run events. I would highly appreciate if you can look further into these additional pieces of information and provide me your analysis at the soonest. Again, I am only interested in the legal issues, including possible defences and remedies, arising from common law. Many thanks, Tom Hastings Tom Hastings Principal, The Legal Counsel Inc. Required You are the junior associate. Please draft the advice to Kevin, following Tom Hasting's instructions and the information and documents he has gathered from Kevin. It is important that you identify all relevant issues arising from common law only.

Explain causation and remoteness-tests (egg-shell skull rule)

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Advice to Kevin Dear Kevin Following our recent meeting and the additional information you provided I have conducted a thorough analysis of the legal issues arising from the incident at the Melbourne ... View the full answer