Get Cheapest Assignment in Australia, UK, US, UAE, Canada and NZ Order Now

Law Assignment ILAC rule CSU


1000 Words Law Assignment CSU

You must write an answer to the problem-type question below, using the ILAC (Issues, Law, Application, and Conclusion) format, a worked example of which is in the Resources folder. In this subject, assignments are marked on-line, using an adapted MS Word programme. You therefore MUST submit your assignment in Word format, NOT as a PDF document. If you submit in PDF it will not be able to be marked. If you think you may need and extension for this assignment, please read the rules relating to extensions in the Subject Outline before applying for an extension.

Law Assignment ILAC rule CSU
Law Assignment ILAC rule CSU


Because of an increase in regional air travel, Bob Rogers opens a business to service light aeroplanes in Bathurst in New South Wales. Part of the servicing that Bob offers is to change the engine oil in aeroplanes. Bob stores oil in barrels. One day, Bob receives 30 barrels of oil from his supplier. Bob opens the first barrel and uses some of the oil. Unfortunately, he does not to screw the lid back onto the tank properly at the end of the day, with the result that dust enters the oil during the night, contaminating it.

The next day, still unaware of what has happened, Bob changes the oil in three aeroplanes. Each aeroplane is owned by a different company, Purple Ltd, Yellow Ltd and Orange Ltd.

The aeroplane owned by Purple Ltd takes off successfully, but about 2 km from the end of the runway the engine cuts out because of the oil contamination and the aeroplane, which is worth $ 1 million, crashes onto a road and is totally destroyed, although the pilot miraculously survives without any injury. 

The aeroplane owned by Purple Ltd also destroys a Mercedes Benz car worth $ 75 000 owned by Ms Mary Gordon, who usually never parks her car on that street but did so that day because the parking lot she uses was full.

Bob hears on the radio what happened to the aeroplane owned by Purple Ltd, and that the pilot reported a problem with the engine to air traffic control moments before the crash. Fearing that the accident might have been due to contaminated oil, Bob runs across to the aeroplane owned by Yellow Ltd, waving his arms to attract the attention of the pilot, who is just about to start his engine. Bob tells the pilot that there seems to be something wrong with the oil and that it could damage the engine, and the pilot decides not to take off for Sydney. There are no other aeroplane able to fly to Sydney, and because the aeroplane owned by Yellow Ltd does not take off, one of the passengers, Ms Jane Seymour, who is a shipping engineer, is unable to get to Sydney to certify that a cargo ship owned by Cunard Ltd is seaworthy, with the result that Cunard Ltd loses $ 250 000 in profit because its vessel cannot put to sea that day. 

After alerting the pilot of the Yellow Ltd plane, Bob also runs to the aeroplane owned by Orange Ltd and gives him the same information about the oil, but the pilot says “Look, mate, I understand what you are saying, but I don’t have time for this. I’m going to take off anyway. I have to get to Melbourne by 10 am”, and with that the pilot closes his window and taxis towards the runway. As the pilot starts his take-off run, the aeroplane’s engine cuts out, it swerves across the runway and suffers $ 200 000 worth of damage.

Accident reports confirm that the aeroplanes owned by Purple Ltd and Orange Ltd crashed because their engines were damaged by the contaminated oil. 

Advise Bob on what liabilities (if any) he may have to all potential plaintiffs who are stated to have suffered loss in the above facts.  


To determine the breach of duty of care, we must examine the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. The court then evaluates whether the plaintiff was owed a duty of care from the defendant. For example. the doctor-patient relationship, the doctor is required to act with reasonable care and does not disclose the confidential information of his patients because of his relationship with the patient. 

The court provides the criteria in the case of Caparo Industries plc v Dickman, the criteria are

a. the harm must be reasonably foreseeable.

b. the relationship of proximity must exist between the plaintiff and the defendant.

c. it must be fair and reasonable to impose liability.

Reasonably foreseeable means that a person would be able to predict the ultimate harmful would be the result of their actions. The relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant must be sufficiently close so that it would be easy to judge that action of one would cause loss or damage to the other. And it is fair for one to owe the duty to another. These are criteria used by the courts in determining whether there has been a breach of duty of care under the law of tort. The plaintiff has to prove all three to claim the damages for breach of duty to care against the defendant.

In the given situation, we can see that Bob has the duty to care for Purple Ltd, Yellow Ltd and Orange Ltd because Bob was responsible for the fill tank of their airplanes and the oil must be of merchantable quality. Therefore, Bob has breached a duty to care and breached implied warranty and merchantability of goods by not providing proper care to the oil. Bob must aware of the fact If the lid of the tank remains open then the oil can be contaminated, this harm can easily be foreseen by Bob. Still, Bob did a negligent act that causes huge damages to the companies. Therefore, Bob is liable for Purple Ltd, Yellow Ltd, and Orange Ltd because they are the parties to contract. Bob will not be liable to Ms Jane Seymour because she is not a party to the contract.