The Ground for Action in Law Opens to Passengers of Lancung Transport - Essay Example

? Business Law No: Business Law Section-A Explanation The ground for action in law opens to passengers of Lancung Transport Answer: In Singapore, Motor Claims Framework has been introduced to address the issues of motor vehicles, which had met with accidents. The Motor Claim Framework aims at to follow the procedure to settle the accident related disputes regardless of how major and minor accident is, even if the damage is not visible, it must be brought in the knowledge of insures within 24 hours from when it took place or the next working day as the case may be. The reporting of the matter has nothing to do with the claim from the insurance company or the third party. As per the policy in vogue, all insurers will have to operate day in and day out. Further, even those cases where settlement arrived at with the driver or vice versa, the matter should be brought to the notices of the insurers (The Law Society of Singapore 2012). 25 passengers who were dancing on the tune of music in the bus were injured on the application of brakes by the driver to save the bus from head on collision with the lorry. Had those passengers paid heed to the warning of driver to not to dance, the injuries could be averted. Here, neither the transport company nor the driver is liable for action (The Law Society of Singapore 2012). Whether Lancung Transport is liable for the action of the driver? Answer: The Actus reus requires a voluntary act or omission for evidence of fault. It also merits clear causation so as to fix the liability against the individual at fault and make him liable for action of his misdeeds. This is the only way to remove the legal blame and to absolve the innocent. In another scenario if the defendant commits an act, which falls under the category of voluntary criminal act, it means that there is strong evidence that he is at fault, and can be blamed for the crime he committed. If an act does not fall within the category of involuntary act, such an act not be termed as act of automatism or under duress. Under the mentioned circumstances, the defendant will not be at fault, and hence not liable for action. It is a matter of fact that once a point of law has been decided by the competent jurisdiction in a particular case of law it can be applicable in all similar future cases that contains the same substance of the facts. Under the mentioned circumstances, the driver of the transport company is not liable for action under the law since the passengers were at fault, not the driver. If Lancung Transport has any defense against their claim Answer: The cited transport company in its defense may take the plea that since those who met with the minor or major injuries are themselves responsible for their misdeeds and not the transport company. If those injured persons acceded to the request of the driver, the situation would have been the other way round. If the passengers are not ready to accept the version of the driver, they may have the authority to proceed further in the matter under the Non Injury Motor Accident protocol to determine the liability (The Law Society of Singapore 2012). This is the general policy for the stakeholders. However, the ultimate prerogative and the final decision lie with the insurers. If the injured persons against the wishes of the insurer will go to the trial court, have to bear the cost of suits and other expenses incurred on litigation to be determined by the competent court of law. Under the mentioned circumstances, the insurer will not be responsible to satisfy the expenses as the competent court may deem fit and appropriate (The Law Society of Singapore 2012). 2-Explanation a) According to the doctrine of promissory, a promise is binding in nature although it is not supported by money consideration. As per the applicable doctrine, a party of a contract ensures an unequivocal promise by words or act that he or she will not force for his or her legal rights available to them under the contract. The deeds of other party and subsequent change in their position concerning fulfillment of promise should be taken into consideration. The party who makes the promise will not enforce those rights unilaterally based on an inequitable term. In case of breach of promise, the said doctrine prevents others not to enforce existing rights, but does not find new cause of action (Woah, et al 2009). Moreover, lack of written contractual obligations, even if it is supported by money consideration, cannot be enforced at will. Here, the question arises whether the parties have intentions to create legally build up relations between them. It is a question, which is to be determined by an objective assessment in line with the relevant facts (Woah, et al 2009).  In the case of commercial agreements, the courts will be of the view that the parties are involved in the execution of legally binding agreement. However, where the parties expressly declare the contrary intention, the agreement has become void. This can be done by inserting the following a) honor clause b) letter of intent c) memoranda of understanding. However, the ultimate conclusion would rely on the objective assessment. The parties in agreement are generally presumed not to indulge in legal repercussion (Woah, et al 2009). In the case of under discussion, Makan Paradise, a famous restaurant assured reservation of seat to Mr. Gan provided he will come within 10 minutes of the commitment call. Since Mr. Gan came after 20 minutes of committed time, hence could not get a reserved seat. Under the aforementioned doctrine of promissory, we do not find Makan Paradise liable for any action under the law of the land. As per the historical perspective, contributory negligence can be termed as complete defense, however, under the Contributory Negligence and Personal Injuries Act, a claimant if suffered damages partly from his own action or from the action of others can claim the compensation. However, compensation can be determined with the gravity of the harm (Fordham 2012).   The standard of care can be gauged from the care of claimant. If standard of care is measured with tort of negligence, it means that lower standard of care meted out by the claimant in some situation. In the case of Jones v Boyce, where a claimant was himself not found negligent, his compensation for damages will not be reduced with a view that others failed to take adequate care (Fordham 2012).   In some situations where the claimant and the defendant are equally responsible for not providing due care, the claimant’s damages are reduced by half. Mr. Jom invited some of his friends to have lunch with him at Makan Paradise with pelahap steaks along with their belacan sauce. On reaching the spot, the waiter informs him that the mentioned sauce has been sold out. Hence, he may offer him pepper and cream sauces (Fordham 2012). Since the standard care was not provided by the famous restaurant to Mr. Jom that caused mental agony and disrespect to him amongst invited friends who were especially invited to have a taste of belacan sauce. Therefore, his stance to claim compensation against the restaurant owner is justified. Section-B a) A partnership business comprises two or more persons who are responsible to carry on a business for earning profit as per their share of investment. The aforementioned sort of business is more complex and needs a number of legal formalities as compared to sole proprietorship. Comparatively it is less bothersome than a corporation (Stenzel 2012). There are two main kinds of partnerships: a) the general partnership and b) the limited partnership. If we compare it with the limited partnership or a corporation, a major advantage of general partnership is that it can be formed with minimum paperwork and at a relatively low cost. The partnership, unlike a corporation, can be operative in more than one state without having any license for doing business. Further, partnerships are subject to less government control and with soften regulations of regulatory bodies. The disadvantages of general partnership are a) limit the number of people who can be part of business b) Partnership can be dissolved at any time c) partner’s liability is unlimited (Stenzel 2012). It would not be out of place to mention that Limited liability partnerships and other specific types of business organizations protect the interest of their owners or shareholders in case of failure of business by doing business under a separate legal entity with legal protections. Contrary to that, un-incorporated businesses or individuals working on their own are not usually so protected as the mentioned businesses are (Stenzel 2012). Keeping in mind the disadvantages as narrated above, it would be advisable that Nert and Wom should convert their business into limited liability partnership or corporation to protect them from the distaste of failure of partnership business. b) A private limited company has its own legal entity separate from its shareholders and directors. Company pays corporation tax on their profit and shareholders receive dividends, which are tax-free under the Singaporean tax system. However, the directors pay tax as employees’ officers of the company in accordance with their remuneration. There are two types of private companies, limited by shares: a) locally incorporated company where number of shareholders is limited to 50 b) an exempt private company is a private limited company whose shares are not held directly or indirectly by any corporation. Its members are limited to 20. An exempt private company needs not to file annual accounts with the ACRA for the information of general public as long as the company files certificate of an exempt private company that the company is able to meet its liabilities as and when they fall due. Advantages and Disadvantages of Private Limited Company: Advantages (Kiezen 2012): 1. Limited liabilities of the shareholders 2. Company has its own legal entity. It can enter into legal agreement. 3. It’s easier to transfer of ownership of a company by way of transfer of shares. 4. Well built structure in line with company act. 5. Minimum number of directors and shareholders should be one. 6. Company feels comfortable to borrow from financial institution. 7. Company has the status and credibility. 8. Exempt private company owned by individual shareholders. Disadvantages (Kiezen 2012): 1. Company is governed by strict rules and regulations as outlined in the company’s act. 2. Running cost of the company is higher than in the partnership business. 3. Directors have to exercise their discretionary powers judiciously to generate more business and profit for the company. 4. Directors have to disclose information regarding their interest in company’s contracts, shares, and debentures. 5. Director can be removed by an ordinary resolution passed by the shareholders. 6. Director is answerable for their wrongful dealing or fraudulent trading. 7. Certain restrictions are imposed on the freedom of the company to enter into contract. 8. Directors / shareholders have to give personal guarantees to banks/owner of the premises. 9. Setting up companies is more expensive than partnership business. We have examined the advantages and disadvantages of converting a partnership concern into private limited company in detail. Now it is up to Nert and Wom to decide in favor or against converting their partnership firm into private company taking into account its merits and demerits. 2) In Singapore, the legal framework for product liability address contract and law of tort since there is no separate law, which should address the issue of product liability. The general objective of product law is compensatory in nature. It seeks to provide legal remedies for the loss or damages that caused by the defective products. Product liability generally refers to defects in the products. This sort of defect usually referred to as defect in goods. Product liability in this perspective based on contract law as the cause of action depends on the contractual nexus of seller and buyer and the remedies are contractual in nature (Goh 1999). In the case of Derry V. Peek a fraudulent misrepresentation is one that has been knowingly false or defective. A negligent misrepresentation is made without reasonable grounds believing that the statement about the product is true. Therefore, goods do not live up to the expectation of the customers due to false advertising may attract compensation (Goh 1999). From the above, it is evident that the traditional contractual remedy for the defective products is restricted to the doctrine of privities. If the person responsible for the defect is the manufacturer and not the retailer, the consumer will seek remedy from the manufacturer under the law of contract. The individual who suffers injuries from the defective products may not sue the retailer since the product was not purchased from him directly. Take the case of Daniel v White & Sons Limited who failed in a claim against a retailer for selling a bottle of lemonade that was not saleable quality (Goh 1999). Take the example of Donoghue v Stevenson 1932. In that case, the House of Lords was of the considered opinion that “a manufacturer owed a duty of care to the ultimate consumer of the product”. This judgment of mentioned case is a binding precedent for which was subsequently followed in the case of Grant v Austalian Knitting Mills 1936. If we look at the case as enumerated in the attached document, we find that cause of action against Garden of Kashmir by Boon Chit for claiming compensation against damages concerning a) medical expenses that incurred on the treatment of mouth b) bore a lot of pain in the mouth c) absence of duty for a week, justifiable. Had the Garden of Kashmir taken due care in selecting and serving the zero defective food products, the Boon Chit would not have chewed the hard plastic that mingled up with the pieces of chickens that caused mouth injuries. It could save the restaurant from legal action by Boon Chit for claiming compensation against the damages done to him. a) Explain the principals of the law of agency with regard to the contractual relationship between the principal, the agent and the third party. Answer: The Singaporean agency laws plays key role in dealing with the commercial transactions, particularly with those new businesses entering into transactions by using its own rights. The commercial transactions can easily be done through middle man. Hence, accordingly day to day commercial transaction can be executed by the intermediaries within the scope of their discretion, either expressly or implied. Intermediaries those who act on behalf of others are called the agents since they are acting on behalf of their principal. The agent can exercise his authority conferred on him by the principal (Han 2009). b) What are the ways by which the agency authority is created? The alternate way, an agency relationship can be established with the implied authority. The implied authority does not expressly say to the agent that he has to act in a certain manner. Conversely, the attitude of the principal and the agent speak itself that the principal has conferred to the agent is restrictive and the agent has agreed to it. Such agreement attributes to the conduct of the party and the circumstances. For example, when a board of directors appoints one of its own directors to the position of managing director or chief executive officer, it means that the board authorizes him impliedly to get all such things done falls within the ambit of a company. Take the case of Hely Hutchinson v Brayhead Ltd. It was held by the competent court of law that managing directors can exercise their implied authority to enter into contracts with other business entities during ordinary course of business of a company (Han 2009). In other words, express and implied authority is in fact the actual or real authority to be exercised. However, where such authorities do not exist, agent may bind the principal. Therefore, it is said that the ‘agent’ enjoys the apparent authority. Where the agent’s acts are binding the principal, an agency relationship has been established (Han 2009). According to agency law, agent can exercise his own authority conferred to him by the principal. Take the case of Sigma Cable (Pte) Limited wherein it was held that “anybody with some nexus to the principal could be the claimant to have authority to bind the principal and cause the principal to incur obligations to a third party. Commercial undertakings would be forced to take extraordinary steps to attempt to inform all and sundry exactly what their employees can or cannot do, often perhaps to any avail” (Han 2009).   Apparent authority can be exercised by the designated official of a company for specific purposes. A company can ensure its representation through its authorized officers in the business promotional events. For ease of reference please see the case of Freeman & Lockyer v Buckhurst Park Properties Ltd (Han 2009).   Apparent authority empowers third party to file suit against the principal. In case the principal intends to file suit against the third party, he cannot rely on apparent authority since he knows that his agent has no authority to plead the case. It is incumbent upon the principal to ratify the acts of its agent provided he wants to file a suit against the third party. c) Is the firm liable to pay full amount to Frowning Rose Catering (Pte) Limited? If an agent acts unauthorized, it amounts to breach of assigned duties by the principal. If principal is liable to the third party due to apparent authority, the principal is entitled to recover his loss from the agent. Where the principal takes the responsibility of the agent’s acts it means that he is ready to pay the damages on behalf of his agent. There may be circumstances where principal compelled to take the responsibility of his agent provided no ratification took place. However, ratification shall not absolve the agent from his liability to the principal (Han 2009). Acts that are void cannot be ratified at all since acts can not attract legal action. This has reference to the case of Watson v Davis wherein it was held that illegal acts cannot be ratified. In another case of Bedford Insurance Co Ltd v Instituto de Resseguros do Brasil, mentioned view had been endorsed by the competent jurisdiction. In crude terminology, a forgery occurs where a signature or seal has been misused (Han 2009). If we look at the scenario where a person signed the document or affixed a seal on behalf of another person without permission of the latter, such acts tantamount to forgeries. To substantiate our stance we refer the case of Northside Developments Pty Ltd v Registrar-General. The forgery can not be ratified as the perpetrator had no intention to act on behalf of the party whose signature or seal has been mis-utilized. However, the forgeries may be endorsed as the individual who either signed the document or affixed the seal has no intention to cheat as an agent. Reference may please be made to M’Kenzie v British Linen Company (Han 2009).   It should be kept in mind that if an agent acts outside the purview of his authority having no ratification of his acts by the principal, the third party has the authority to file a suit against the agent for compensation of damages (Han 2009). Under the said explanation, the firm is bound to pay the full amount to the Frowning Rose Catering (Pte) Limited. However, the Principal is entitled to recover the remaining amount from the agent. Bibliography Fordham, M. 2012. The Law of Negligence. [Online]. Available at: http://www.singaporelaw.sg/content/Negligence.html. [Accessed 16 July 2012]. Goh, E. 1999. Product Liability Law in Singapore. [Online]. Available at: http://www3.ntu.edu.sg/nbs/sabre/working_papers/04-99.pdf. [Accessed 16 July 2012]. Han, TC. 2009. Law of Agency. [Online]. Available at: http://www.singaporelaw.sg/content/AgencyLaw.html. [Accessed 16 July 2012]. Kaizen. 2012. Advantages and Disadvantages of Singapore Private Limited Company -- Singapore Company. [Online]. Available at: http://www.bycpa.com/html/news/20095/1402.html. [Accessed 16 July 2012]. Stenzel, PL. 2012. Partnerships. [Online]. Available at: http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/encyclopedia/Oli-Per/Partnerships.html#b. [Accessed 16 July 2012]. The Law Society of Singapore. 2012. Road Accidents. [Online]. Available at: http://www.lawsociety.org.sg/public/you_and_the_law/road_accidents.aspx. [Accessed 15 July 2012]. Woan, LP, Koh, P and Ho, TC. 2009. Singapore Contract Law. [Online]. Available at: http://www.singaporelaw.sg/content/ContractLaw.html. [Accessed 15 July 2012]. Read More