Case Law Bonus Post: Gilbertson v. Everest Experience & Armstrong v Bennett

Gilbertson v. Everest Experience
This case is another one that describes how context helps us evaluate someone’s conduct- in this case, it helps us decide “whether conduct was done with reckless disregard.” It essentially says that not following pre-existing standards (“customs of the community or one’s previously promulgated procedures”) can be used in determining whether or not someone acted with reckless disregard, but it doesn’t settle the question.

Armstrong v Bennett
Notes: Although this bit of case law is rather long-winded, the central point it makes is pretty simple: the promises a company makes in its pamphlets or brochures are part of its contract with its customers. In the context of this case, this explains Lee’s argument to Neptune employees about the refund.