There in lies the defense for claims of caveat emptor.
But in this case someone died. Caveat emptor has no legal standing, though it's a common sense approach to a certain extent. You paid forty bucks more for a telly at provider A than provider B was offering? Caveat Emptor. Your pizza was cold? Caveat Emptor. Your bus was late or your coffee sucked? Caveat Emptor.
In this case a person used a product bought in good faith, believing it was legally sanctioned when it wasn't, when the provider was well aware of that and the regulator allegedly so. Caveat venditor.
Caveat ordinatio.
Of course Latin is a dead language so it's probably better to stick with the lingua franca (sorry
). The important test in our legal system is the reasonable person test.
Would a reasonable person view an advertisement for joyflight services and assume that service complied with the relevant legislation (even if it were an inherently risky activity) because otherwise it would not be allowed to operate or advertise?
Would a reasonable person assume that if the relevant airport recommended that business (if that occurred), the business was conducting lawful activities?
Would a reasonable person assume that if the relevant regulator was aware of breaches against the legislation it regulates, it would restrict or prohibit that service's activities and advise the public of its findings so unwary customers didn't unwittingly stumble into a deathtrap?
Would that be reasonable?