Also the overall situation while reviewing the terms of the contract. But it would not be wrong to mention that, in this case, the requirements of the audience were not considered during such previous deliberations. The main questions that arise is this: Are the basic needs of the audience, viewed in the light of shows conducted by highly acclaimed and successful divas as the present one, subservient to such demands and is it necessary to bend rules and conduct to suit individual requirements, much to the detriment of common health and safety norms. The laws relating to law of tort could be applied in this particular instance which could hold the organising groups responsible for deficiencies in public services by not providing basic amenities to the viewing public. There are also elements of lack of car or imputed negligence which could become cause for later action.
It needs to be reaffirmed that in such events, the onus of proving that standards of care were maintained would lie on the organisers who have take up the responsibility for stage managing this concert.
It would be first of all, necessary to take up aspects of health and safety laws since providing for necessary air- conditioning would come primarily under public safety standards. Apparently, there has been a deficiency in service, and audience comprising of around 12,000 people had to endure 90 F heat and resultant health detriment.
It is quite possible that the section of audience who have suffered health loss could file suits against event management organisers for reparation of health damages due to exposure to excessive heat and related hazards.
The organisers could seek remedies under insurance coverage schemes, or exclusion clause. The main idea behind exclusion clauses is to limit or exempt the extent of liability in the event of any problem relating to performance of agreed contract. The conditions for the enforcement of the exclusion clause