On 1 January 2007, Megabucks Ltd cleared a large area of land looking over a bay in which commercial...

Question

On 1 January 2007, Megabucks Ltd cleared a large area of land looking over a bay in which commercial prawn trawling was undertaken. The local council approved the development. Megabucks Ltd cleared trees and levelled the area, stockpiling all the debris (trees, sand and soil) at the edge of the land, adjacent to the bay. The approved plans said nothing about the removal of debris. However, under the relevant statutory powers the council could have made the removal of debris a condition.

The council’s officer had inspected the site and carelessly failed to notice the dangerous size of the pile. Had he done so the council could have ordered its removal under another statutory power.

About a month after the inspection, the pile of debris had become considerably larger and its sheer weight caused it to collapse. Tonnes of debris fell into the bay. The commercial prawn trawlers, who operated under licences issued by the council, sustained damage to their fishing gear while trawling the next day, and were unable to fish in the bay for 12 months.

(a) What action or actions in tort may the commercial prawn trawlers claim against Megabucks Ltd?

(b) What action or actions in tort may the commercial prawn trawlers claim against the council?

(c) What damages would the commercial prawn trawlers be entitled to from either the Council or Megabucks Ltd?Would either the Council or Megabucks have a defence?

David · Accepted Answer

Actions against Megabucks 
Normally tort cases in US are somewhat rare. In a contract one party has some duty that they 
need to complete and there is a party that pays for the services. Here Megabucks has to clear all 
the trees that are coming into the way leveling the pathway. Then as per the agreement they have 
to stockpile all the debris adjacent to the bay at the edge of the land. The contract that got 
approved does not mention about the proper dumping or discarding of the final wastage and 
debris. Since the plan that got approved didn’t mention about the debris and Megabucks have 
completed whatever what has been provided to the corporation, there cannot be a liability for the 
breach. There can be no penalty for the same. This case does not involve incompletion, delay, or 
defective performance. But as the case may be, they are somewhat wrong considering the ethical 
point. For any organization to do business,

On 1 January 2007, Megabucks Ltd cleared a large area of land looking over a bay in which commercial prawn trawling was undertaken. The local council approved the development. Megabucks Ltd cleared...

Solution

Answer To This Question Is Available To Download

Related Questions & Answers

Submit New Assignment