COMPANY LAW

Company Law

Company Law

Introduction of the topic

This paper is based on the case which is filed by Jones; this is basically a suit against the mishap she has faced in the parking area of Smith's parking. She is injured in the premises of parking and the Smith's has although mentioned that this particular kind of injury is not going to be paid for, but the statement was not mentioned in a manner that all the visitors can have a look on them and was less evident.

The situation which is being discussed in this paper is primarily being discussed under the Australian rules and regulations regarding the particular issue. Also state policy statements are being used to make the conclusion based on the analyse set of facts. A proper set of laws are available in the Constitution of Australia which made it clear. That what are the figures which must be shared in case of a different kind of mishaps faced by the visitors in a paid parking area.

Key Parties of the Case

Key participant of the case are the two parties, out of which one is the party which is filing the suit and the other is the one which is facing the charges and defending itself.

Jones: She the visitor of the paid parking facility, she has suffered an injury within the premises of the parking and she want it to be paid by the parking's authority.

Smith's parking: They are being charged as result of the suit which is charged by Jones. They are trying to defend themselves on the basis of the vaguely demonstrated rules and regulation list which stated that they are not liable for such kind of occurrence.

Major Court Precedents

One of the major court precedents which can be discussed at the time of analysing this particular case is the Mr. Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd. This is the case of year 1971, 2 QB 163, which is discussed by Bell, (2012). The plaintiff, Thornton in this case was the one who drove into a parking garage where is he collected a ticket from an automatically working wending machine. It was claimed in the ticket in one of the clause that was for an internal sign which disclaimed responsibility for loss. After parking the car Throton left for his destination and he came back and was injured as he returned to his car.

Such kind of cases is although confronted before when the people are injured and the tickets were by human operators, but in this case the court of Appeal held an automatic machine was a very rear thing to be done. No such kind of cases has any application to a ticket which is the result of the issuance of an automated devise not a human being. The customer makes the payment by putting the money in the machine and gets the required ticket. He is not able to refuse it in case he is not agreed on the mentioned clause and ...