Auctioneers and Misdescription: Between Scylla and Charybdis

In Elidor Investments SA v Christie's, Manson Woods Ltd the court implied a term as to Wednesbury reasonableness into an auctioneer's agency contract which fettered its ‘sole and complete discretion’ to describe lots. It is contended that, in so doing, the court unjustifiably and unnecessarily extended the jurisdiction into areas where it was not required and, in granting an injunction to restrain the sale of the lots, failed properly to apply the appropriate criteria.     

The duty to warn/protect: issues in clinical practice

The duty of therapists to warn or protect third parties when a patient expresses a threat was established by the court in the Tarasoff decision. Confidentiality, disclosure, and prediction of violence are clinical, ethical, and legal issues that the therapist must address in the context of a therapeutic relationship. Clinical case material from the literature, as well as cases from the authors' experiences, indicate that when confidentiality is breached and a potential victim is warned, the therapeutic results may be positive, especially if the patient participated in the process. Other methods of protection, such as commitment, use of medications, police involvement, and confiscation of a weapon, may be necessary. Each case deserves individual consideration as to what appropriate and necessary steps should be taken. Through careful assessment of a patient's threats, concern for the patient and victim, adherence to ethical standards of care, and knowledge of the law, one can often protect a victim as well as engage the patient in an ongoing therapeutic relationship.     

Duty to warn of genetic harm in breach of patient confidentiality

Harm caused by the failure of health professionals to warn an at-risk genetic relative of her or his risk is genetic harm. Genetic harm should be approached using the usual principles of negligence. When these principles are applied, it is shown that (a) genetic harm is foreseeable; (b) the salient features of vulnerability, the health professional's knowledge of the risk to the genetic relative and the determinancy of the affected class and individual result in a duty of care being owed to the genetic relative; (c) the standard of care required to fulfil the duty to warn should be the expectations of a reasonable person in the position of the relative; and (d) causation is satisfied as the harm is caused by the failure of intervention of the health professional. Legislation enacted subsequent to the Report of the Commonwealth of Australia, Panel of Eminent Persons (Chair D Ipp), Review of the Law of Negligence Report (2002) and relevant to a duty to warn of genetic harm is considered. The modes of regulation and penalties for breach of any future duty to warn of genetic harm are considered.     

Between the Scylla and Charybdis: physicians and the clash of liability standards and cost cutting goals within accountable care organizations

This article seeks to examine the conflict between non-cost-conscious medical malpractice liability standards and health care cost cutting measures within the context of Accountable Care Organizations ("ACOs") under the new health care reform law. This article begins by providing an overview of the high level of health care spending within the United States health care system in order to provide a context for better understanding policymakers' push for cost cutting measures, including ACOs. This article then examines the tension between cost containment efforts and medical liability standards through an examination of the "stuck in the middle" mentality that physicians face when they are forced to meet both liability standards that do not take into account cost concerns and cost cutting standards imposed by or through managed care organizations, pay-for-performance programs and consumer-driven healthcare. This article then introduces the concept of the ACO and describes elements of the ACOs envisioned under the new health care reform legislation. This article concludes by examining and analyzing whether and how ACOs will exacerbate the cost containment/liability standard tension, and how that tension may impact the effectiveness of ACOs.