Originally Posted by
skybluesea
this is where the due diligence requirements demand AC make all reasonable efforts to ensure the application is valid. Does this mean taking the aircraft apart to figure out whether any latent defects exist - probably NOT, but simply taking the word of the manufacturer NOT likely sufficient either. This is NOT black & white, and TC will have discretion as does the Minister on what obligations rests with AC here.
Eventually a question of fact for a jury. Maybe.
But AC did not take the word of only Boeing. They also took the word of FAA. And since TC and the FAA have, if not formal agreements, a century of mutual trust, AC also took the word of TC.
The market is not pure. AC did not have anywhere near infinite options let alone even sufficient knowledge of the two options they had. There is a regulatory backdrop to weigh their level of responsibility.
In this reality, AC had the knowledge that the aircraft passed the required regulatory steps. They did (or did not) maintain the aircraft to the required by the oem standard.
Boeing may in this case have fraudulently subverted a framework of trust. You would have to demonstrate that AC contributed to that - had knowledge of their desire for aircraft faster than is possible - to put the fraud on AC.