For each legal problem question, you are required to:

1. State the issue or issues.
2. State the relevant rule or rules.
3. Cite the relevant case or cases.
4. Answer "Yes" or "No" to the question posed at the end of the problem and explain the reasons for your answer.

---

IRCA Recommended

Adrian runs a successful car sales business on the Gold Coast. Adrian enters into a contract with Acme Security Systems, whose guards are required to patrol his premises every night. While undertaking his security rounds, Des (the guard) decides to light a cigarette, which he fails to properly extinguish before throwing away. Unfortunately, the cigarette lands in a box containing inflammable materials, which catches fire and quickly spreads through the car yard, destroying all Adrian’s cars. The contract between Adrian and Acme Security Systems includes the following clause:

"Acme Security Systems shall not be responsible, under any circumstances, for damage or injurious acts caused by an employee of the company unless such act could have been foreseen and avoided by the exercise of due diligence on the part of the Company as his employer."

Will Adrian win if he sues Acme Security Systems despite the exemption clause?

The main issue in this scenario is whether Adrian can hold Acme Security Systems liable for the actions of its employee, Des, and the resulting damages caused by the fire. To determine the outcome, we need to analyze the relevant rule and consider any applicable cases.

The contract between Adrian and Acme Security Systems includes an exemption clause. This clause states that the company shall not be responsible for damage caused by an employee unless the act could have been foreseen and avoided through the exercise of due diligence by the company as the employer.

Based on this clause, the relevant rule is that Acme Security Systems can avoid liability if it can demonstrate that the act of Des lighting the cigarette and causing the fire could not have been foreseen and avoided through the exercise of due diligence.

In this case, Adrian would need to prove that Acme Security Systems failed to exercise due diligence in its hiring or supervision of Des, making it foreseeable that such an incident could occur. However, the facts provided do not indicate any negligence on the part of Acme Security Systems in hiring or supervising Des. Therefore, it is unlikely that Adrian would be able to overcome the exemption clause and hold Acme Security Systems liable for the damages.

Learn more about Security Systems.
brainly.com/question/29796699

#SPJ11