Advise to Toan Regarding the Action with Brookland Greens Pty Ltd - Assignment Example

Answer Two Questions Table of Contents Table of Contents 1 Question 1 2 Question 2 4 Works Cited 7 Question 1 Advise to Toan Regarding Whether the Action will be Successful or Not In relation to the provided scenario presented in the question, it is observed that a government authority has conducted an auction for the sale of lands which has been possessed by the government. For this auction, government has formulated certain rules which states that if any person purchased any land from government-held auction previously, further he/she cannot appear in the auction second time. Toan is observed to be a developer who had appeared previously in the government auction and also bid or owned a land from the auction. Furthermore, Toan wanted to buy or hold another land from the government auction to be held recently. In order to own another land from the auction, Toan formed a proprietary company with whose name he thought of taking part in the auction. Moreover, after appearing in the auction Toan under lieu of his company was able to bid successfully for another land in the auction. However, the authority of the auction refused to handover the land to Toan and its company, saying that they had already owned a land before from the previous auction and were violating the rules of the auction, as a result they cannot own this land. After the refusal from the authority, Toan sued the government authority for not handing over the second land to the company by demonstrating the fact that the land was purchased by his company and not by himself. And there was no provision preventing him to conduct such an act. It is assumed that apparently it is not Toan who appeared in the auction second time, rather it is Toan’s company who took part in the auction for bidding for land. According to the formulated law in auction by the government, the process opted by Toan is legal and he is not violating the rules. This is because for the first time Toan bid for a land in the auction in lieu of his own name, however in the second time, Toan attempted to bid for a land in the auction under an enacted company for the sole purpose of bidding for the land. Thus, it can be said that from the viewpoint of intention, Toan is violating the auction rules laid by the government. A case study ‘Australian Law- Law of Business Association’ has been considered to present advice for Toan. The case states that Mr. Main is a person who bid for a land from the local government council held auction. Furthermore, he desired to own or bid for another land from the subsequent auction of government. In order to own another land he formed a company. This is because the rules of the auction states that a person cannot bid or own land second time from a government held auction, if he/she already has owned a land from the auction before. Moreover, Mr. Main was able to bid for land in the auction. However, the authority denied giving the land to Mr. Main because he already owned a land from the auction before. Furthermore, Mr. Main thought to sue the authority for not handing over the land (Law Essays UK, “Case Study – Australian Law- Law of Business Association”). By analysing the scenario, it is observed that Mr. Main had the intension to buy another land for business purpose thus violating the rules indirectly. After bidding for the land for second time, Mr. Main had not received the land, for which he sued the authority. In relation to intentional tort law, Mr. Main was found to be a convict and could be charged with penalties for violating the rules and the regulations intentionally. Intentional tort law can be defined as the performance of individual through which certain rules are violated intentionally which causes harm and injury to others (North Carolina State University, “Unit 5 – Torts”). By making comparison to the referred case, it can be stated that Toan has the chances to lose the case because he had violated the auction rules indirectly and intentionally under the intentional tort law and furthermore he can be penalised with fines or imprisonment. Question 2 Could Brookland Greens Pty Ltd Be Made Criminally Responsible For The Loss Of Life? Discuss The Doctrines Or Techniques Available In Law To Impose Criminal Responsibility On Corporations And Which Ones Would Apply And Which Ones Would Not. Give Reasons. It has been observed that Toan’s company named as Brookland Greens Pty Ltd is a developer and sub-divider of lands. The company subdivides the lands into smaller blocks and sells them for the purpose of residential housing. However, after five years one of the homes exploded, living five family members residing in the house dead. This happened because the house was built upon an old garbage area causing methane gas formulation and explosion. In relation to the provided case, it can be stated that the accident apparently occurred due to the negligence of Toan’s company. This is because the company did not have relevant information about the area’s condition. According to the tort law of negligence, Toan’s company can be charged under the act of negligence. This is due to the fact that tort law of negligence states that a person can be found to be a convict if he/she decides to serve a guest with duty of care, however in this process breaches the duty of care as a result causing injury (Oxford University Press, “Part 3- Tort Law”). Furthermore, it is observed that Toan’s company’s performance has a relation with the tort law of negligence because they failed to serve the residents with safety. Contextually, there are certain doctrines or techniques available in the law of criminal responsibility for corporations which include vicarious liability and the ‘identification’ doctrine (The Law Commission UK, “Criminal Liability in Regulatory Contexts”). Vicarious liability can be defined as the liability of a person’s action and non-action which is performed under the superior and the superior is liable of every task performed by the undertaken employee (Rose, “Vicarious Liability in Tort in Respect of Deliberate Wrongdoing”). Thus, it is assumed that if any employee’s performance causes any loss to others, the superior is liable for the conducts. While ‘identification’ doctrine can be defined as the law in which the injured person cannot sue or claim for compensation from the person by whose negligence he/she is injured (University of Tasmania, Australia, “Criminal Liability of Organizations”). From the definition of ‘identification’ doctrine, it is assumed that a plaintiff cannot sue defendant for the negligence by which the plaintiff was injured. According to the doctrine law of criminal responsibility, vicarious liability can be imposed on Toan’s company rather than identification doctrine. Furthermore, under vicarious liability the owner of the company is liable for the death of five residents due to the explosion caused by accumulation of methane gas. This is because the owner Mr. Toan had served the land to the family for residential housing without testing the condition of the areas. It was Toan’s responsibility to verify the condition of the land prior to serving the place for residential purpose which he failed to comply with according to tort law of negligence. Works Cited Law Essays UK. Case Study – Australian Law- Law of Business Association, n.d. Web. 29 Aug. 2012. North Carolina State University. Unit 5 – Torts, n.d. Web. 29 Aug. 2012. Oxford University Press. Part 3- Tort Law, n.d. Web. 29 Aug. 2012. Rose, Paul T. Vicarious Liability in Tort in Respect of Deliberate Wrongdoing. Old Square Chambers, 2009. Web. 29 Aug. 2012. The Law Commission UK. Criminal Liability in Regulatory Contexts, 2012. Web. 29 Aug. 2012. University of Tasmania, Australia. Criminal Liability of Organizations, 2007. Web. 29 Aug. 2012. Read More