LAW150 – Assignment – Byron Levene – 30188908
Date Created: October 4, 2012  Date Modified: November 4, 2012

Notes from author: This assignment can be downloaded from Scribd with its original formatting. This assignment has not been marked at this point.

I’m using my LegalCSS plugin shortcodes for the Names of Acts.

It is the purpose of this essay to outline advice to the plaintiff, Ace Hi Fi, on potential action against AZ Hi Fi, and the third parties of Planes R Us, and Adventure Air, who were under contract by AZ Hi Fi to provide aerial advertising services, in respect to a special events order obtained by Ace Hi Fi under Part 2 of the Major Events (Aerial Advertising) Act 2009 (WA) (‘MEAA’). Three individual events must be examined here. The action of Planes R Us, under contract by AZ Hi Fi, to fly aircraft displaying advertising material as defined in MEAA section 3, near the venue on the first day of the event; The knowledge of potential actions of Planes R Us to fly aircraft dropping flyers, under contract by AZ Hi Fi, over the venue on the last day of the event; And the actions of Air Adventures, under contract by AZ Hi Fi, to fly jetpacks displaying advertising material over the venue on the last day of the event.

Planes R Us Fly near venue of first day of event.

The action of Planes R Us, under contract by AZ Hi Fi to fly a banner advertising AZ Hi Fi on the first day of the event, does meet the requirements of aerial advertising as defined under the MEAA . However, in order to satisfy a breach under section 11 of the MEAA, the aircraft must be “within sight of a specified venue…”, as we have no definition of “within sight” in MEAA, we will to refer to its ordinary meaning in an dictionary . The Macquarie Dictionary defines within as:
“in the compass or limits of; not beyond: within view, to live within ones income.”
And sight:
“range of vision: in sight of land.”
It being the case that the aircraft displaying the aerial advertising in question could only be seen with the use of binoculars, therefore outside the unassisted visible range from the venue, and not meet the meaning ordinary meaning of “within sight”.

Further information would be required to confirm if this act by the Planes R Us aircraft was in fact exempt, in that it may be the case an event order was taken out by AZ Hi Fi, in another location adjacent to the venue at the same time .

Due to the Planes R Us aircraft being out of visible range, and the possibility of another event order covering this flight, no action for this incident can be taken under the authority of MEAA 2009, with the information provided.

Planes R Us Dropping Flyers Over the Venue on the Last Day of Event.

The planned action of Planes R Us, under contract by AZ Hi Fi to fly over the venue on the last day of the event and drop 100,000 flyers, satisfies the definition of aerial advertising in MEAA, and no information has been provided that permission has been given by the event organiser for this action . It also can not meet an exemption for ‘…another specified event at another specified venue.’ , as this action is to take place at the specified venue required of the original event order taken out by Ace Hi Fi. Regarding the exemption allowed for “…an emergency; […] or in, provision of emergency services.” There is no indication this is applies from the information supplied.

It is important to differentiate between the actions of Planes R Us, and those of AZ Hi Fi in relation to this event. In relation to the Planes R Us, under contract by AZ Hi Fi to fly the planes over the venue on the last day of the event, this would meet the criteria of “…within sight of a specified venue during the specified time…” , and therefore meet criteria for an injunction.

It should also be noted that AZ Hi Fi, having fore knowledge of the event order in place and choosing to ignore the restrictions by procuring the services of Planes R Us to make this fly-over. Being that the flight was not conducted by AZ Hi Fi directly, this would constitute “attempting or conspiring to contravene section 11”.

As this action satisfies a breach of the event order, the event organizer does have the option to apply to the Supreme Court to seek an injunction restraining both AZ Hi Fi and Planes R Us from engaging in this activity.

Jetpacks flying over stage on last day of event.

The potential of Air Adventures, under contract by AZ Hi Fi to fly Jetpacks over the stage on the last day of the event satisfies “within sight of a specified venue during the specified time in relation to a specified event conducted at the venue…” being that this would occur over the stage while the event is at its climax.

The shirts worn by the Air Adventures staff would display the name of AZ Hi Fi, which falls into the definition of advertising as defined in the act, and that the shirts are not the normal branding of Adventure Air, this would also satisfy the definition of aerial advertising as defined in MEAA.

Being that this action on behalf of AZ Hi Fi, by Adventure Air meets the criteria for an offence under MEAA, the event organizer has the option to seek an injunction to restrain both AZ Hi Fi and Adventure Air from engaging in this activity.

Remedies

As outlined above the criteria has been met to apply to the courts for an injunction to restrain AZ Hi Fi and Planes R Us form flying over the venue on the last day of the event and dropping flyers advertising AZ Hi Fi. Another order could be sort to restrain AZ Hi Fi and Adventure Air from flying jetpacks over the stage on the last day of the event.

Section 14 (1) of MEAA allows action for damages under a breach of section 11, however these are limited to any “…loss, injury or damage, or damages in respect of loss, injury or damage. As no loss has occurred, due to the breeches of section 11 being future acts, no damages could be sort under this section.

Section 14 (2) allows “…recovery of future losses as a result of the potential loss of sponsorship of an event.” As there has been no indication that the plaintiff, Ace Hi Fi has lost sponsorship of the event, no action can be made for future losses under this section.

Giving consideration to the above, Ace Hi Fi would likely be granted the injunctions to restrain: 1) AZ Hi Fi and Planes R Us from dropping flyers over the event on the last day, and 2) AZ Hi Fi and Adventure Air from flying over the stage on the last day of the event.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cook Catriona Robin Creyke Robert Geddes and David Hamer, Laying Down the Law (LexisNexis Butterworths, 8th ed, 2012).
Butt Peter and David Hamer (eds), LexisNexis Concise Australian Legal Dictionary (LexisNexis Butterworths, 4th ed, 2011).
The Macquarie Dictionary (3rd ed, 2001 at 27 September 2012).
Interpretation Act 1984 (WA).
Major Events (Areal Advertising) Act 2009 (WA).

Related Posts

Leave a Reply