This issue with this case concerns the offences committed by the three China bus drivers that went on strike, the required criminal laws to deal with the offences committed are Duress, Tort of Conspiracy, Employment law and Discharge of Contract.
As part of the common law, Duress happens when one party refuses to agree into a contract and is forced to agree to the contract by violence or a threat, and also the threat must be of relation to actual physical violence to life, limb or liberty of the plaintiff or members of his family. In the case of Barton v Armstrong (1976), A threatened to kill B if B did not enter a contract which was wholly unfavourable to B. In relation to ...view middle of the document...
Thus, the three bus drivers Zhang, Wang and Chang can be charged with Penalty for Instigation for inciting other train drivers to partake the strike alongside with them.
In Singapore, Employment law, also known as Labour law, have made it known that it is illegal for workers involved in essential services, whereby for this case is public transport, to go on a strike unless a 14 days’ notice has been given to the employers. Even after giving a notice, workers are still going to go on a strike, so one might think that it actually defeats the purpose of giving a notice. However, the purpose of giving notice was to allow emergency arrangements to be made to ensure a minimum service necessary for the well-being of the public. The bus drivers caused disruption for essential service in Singapore by going on a strike without any notice which is illegal and has thus can be sued under Employment law in Singapore at court.
Discharge by Breach applies for this case as Actual Breach which is a wilful act of breaching a contract, by his own act of disabling himself from performing the contract, and the other party can treat the contract as discharged and can be sued straight away. In the case of Synge v Synge (1894), a man agreed before marriage to settle a house on his wife after marriage, however subsequently conveyed the house to a third party. Similarly to the case, the bus drivers agreed to work for the company on a contract, however decided to go on a strike instead, considered as their own act of disabling themselves from performing the contract and thus can be charged in court for Discharge by Breach.
In conclusion, since a contract in law requires offer and acceptance, the bus drivers accepted thus they are legally bound; however they chose to go on a strike and even committed conspiracy among several other bus drivers from the Philippines and India in an effort to make the authorities succumb to their demands of a better pay and shorter hours. Therefore, they can all be charged with Criminal Law and be fined up to S$2,000 and/or jailed for up to a year with the offences mentioned.
The issue with this case concerns the Law of Tort, whereby an Indian restaurant is to be held responsible for Komola’s condition due to choking on the food with the remains of a half-eaten lizard that caused her a serious stroke. As she can no longer practice law and is bed-ridden, her husband has come to ask for the measure of damages that could be claimed against the restaurant.
The Tort of Negligence, generally seen as carelessness, requires all three elements to be established in order to succeed in an action namely Duty of Care; Breach of that duty and Damage resulting from that breach.
A Duty of Care in Tort Law is a legal obligation imposed on an which is imposed on an individual requiring that they adhere to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others. In the case of Donoghue v....