|
Organiser’s liability
19/12/2007 The Star By BHAG SINGH
It was less than two weeks ago that Kuala Lumpur hosted the glittering
Global Indian Film Awards, which was extensively promoted and highly
publicised.
An irritated reader who attended the event was considerably upset because of
the delay in starting the show and the manner in which it dragged on until
nearly or past 2am and wants to know if there is any remedy.
Those depending on public transport would have had problems getting home. By
the time the show ended, only taxis would have been available. Taxi drivers
inclined to exploit the situation would have had the option of demanding
what sum they wanted and choosing which areas they wished to go to.
The reader is further aggrieved because, despite the fact that the time for
the show was indicated as 9pm, with ticket holders being required to be
seated 15 minutes beforehand, the show did not start until well after 10pm,
after the arrival of a popular star.
However annoyed or upset a person may be, the fact is that in order to
institute legal action, it is always necessary to identify the cause of
action on which the claim is to be based and the correct party against whom
the relief and remedy is sought.
In an event like this, there are various parties involved: local organisers
and their foreign partners who put the show together, the company that sells
the tickets and the owner of the venue where the event is held.
The organiser would appear to be the natural focus of attention in relation
to such grievances. But then if the organiser has done all that needs to be
done but if a star turns up late and delays the show, who should be held
responsible?
In a way, the star is not an agent or employee of the organiser to make the
organiser vicariously liable. But the organiser could be made liable if he
had guaranteed that the show would start on time.
On the other hand, the organiser could be blamed for the show starting late.
It could have started without waiting for the star to arrive. But then
again, the majority of the audience may prefer to wait for the star to turn
up especially if he or she is involved at the beginning of the show and they
have come all the way to see him or her.
But let us assume that a party can be identified as being responsible to the
individual who attended the show. Such an individual is still likely to have
few, if any, legal rights to bring an action because of the contractual
provisions that provide safeguards for the organiser.
Such provisions are called exemption clauses and these can exempt a party in
such a situation from liability even if it is actually in breach of its
contractual obligations.
Exemption clauses have the effect of agreeing in advance that a party in
breach will not be liable even if it is in breach. Or it may be provided
that the liability of the party in breach is to be capped.
However, in situations where events are organised in which the presentation
involves people whose presence or timely presence cannot be assured, the
organiser would protect itself by the use of an exemption clause in broad
terms. An example of such a clause is: “The promoter/venue owner may add,
withdraw or substitute artists and/or vary advertised programmes, event
times, seating arrangements and audience capacity without prior notice. The
promoter may postpone, cancel, interrupt or stop the event due to adverse
weather, dangerous situations, or any other causes beyond his reasonable
control.”
It will therefore be seen that given the nature of the event, it is not one
that would allow attendees to have recourse for happenings such as the show
not starting on time or certain personalities not turning up on time or for
that matter, even if the entire event is cancelled.
However, despite all these, a person who can establish liability may yet
find himself only entitled to nominal damages. This is so because in law,
even if a wrong has been done, the party aggrieved must prove its loss. Thus
in this context, any real damage suffered would be usually difficult to
prove.
Leaving aside the legal aspects, some observations with regards to such
events are in order.
The situation has to be viewed in a wider context. Notwithstanding the
unhappiness of those attending, the organisers and sponsors may have wider
objectives such as to promote the country to a bigger audience through an
international broadcast.
Hardcore fans of an artiste might not mind waiting until the next morning
just to get a glimpse of their favourite star. So if one isn’t a hardcore
fan, he could be better off staying away from such events to avoid
encountering such potential inconveniences caused by diva attitudes. |
