Business law - Essay Example

Download file to see previous pages 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 ...Download file to see next pagesRead More