Can anyone explain the questions please? :))

destion 1 As we learned in last week's tutorial class, the Australian legal position as regards the circumstances under which a legally enforceable 'duty of care\" will arise when a person supplies inaccurate or incorrect information or advice to another person is now well settled. But in a case where a defendant's negligent conduct {rather than negligent words) causes the plainti' 'pure economic loss\" (loss not associated with any damage to the plaintiff's person or property} Australian courts have traditionally been reluctant to impose a duty of care. In such cases a duty of care will not be imposed unless the facts of the case are such as to show that not only was such loss reasonably foreseeable but also that the 'salient features1 of the case are such as to both justify the imposition of a duty of care and ensure that, in so doing, the court does not create a precedent that could lead to the imposition of liability 'in an indeterminate amount, for an indeterminate period of time to an indeterminate class of plaintiffs\". Your text {para 14.230} identies seven 'salient features' that are commonly inuential in such cases. What are they and how and why is each of them likely to inuence a court's decision (one way or another) on the 'duty of care\" question? I estion 2 Last year there was a collision at sea between a shing vessel, the Melina T, and a motor bulk carrier, the Eternal Wind, 0H Noosa Heads in Queensland. The Melina T was owned by a company called Fortuna Fishing, a company controlled by the Rowley family. The Rowley family also controlled another company called Fortrma Seafoods. Under an 'exclusive supply\" contract between the two companies Fortuna Fishing owned and operated a eet of shing vessels and Fortuna Seafoods processed and sold all of the sh caught by Fortuna Fishing. Both Fortuna Fishing and Fortuna Seafoods suffered losses as a result of the collision and both sued the owners of the Eternal Wind for compensation. There was no dispute that the collision was caused by the negligence of the crew of the Eternal Wind. So the owners of the Eternal Wind quickly settled the claim for the damage to property and the associated nancial losses made by Fortuna Fishing. But they have strongly resisted the claim brought by Fortuna Seafoods. Although they accepted that Fortuna Seafoods had su'ered signicant economic loss as a result of the collision, they denied that they owed Fortuna Seafoods a duty of care to protect it 'om pure economic loss. 0n the other hand, Fortuna Seafoods argued that they were owed a duty of care by the owners of the Eternal Wind, especially in light of the fact that the use in the shing industry of vertically integrated business structures, whereby one entity operates one or more shing vessels and a closely associated entity markets and processes their catch, is very common throughout Australia and that this is so well known in the industry that the oviners of the 'Eternal Wind' would certainly have been aware of that usage. This case will be coming to trial shortly. How should the court decide the ease