100%(2)2 out of 2 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 10 - 12 out of 13 pages.
According to Section 157(3), if section 157 is breached, the director would have to return profitsmade by him, or be liable for losses suffered by the company and that he would be guilty of anoffence.Yeo can be disqualified as a director for breaching Section 157 of the Company Act. Under Section 156(1), when a company proposes to enter into a transaction and a director hasan indirect interest in that transaction, as soon as the relevant facts have come to hisknowledge, he must declare the nature of his interest at the meeting of directors. Hence, Yeois required to declare that is nephew is one of the contender bidding for the cleaning for sub-contract. Is his nephew considered an immediate family member?
If the drones malfunctions and causes damages, the directors can be held liable as they wereawareof the dangers of using drones. Directors have a duty to care to their employees inensuring a safe and hazard-free working environment. Hence if the drones do result in personalinjuries, the Board of Directors can be held liable under the tort of negligencesince they werewarned about the dangers of drones and they breached it by using the drone nonetheless. Isthere still a breach because already followed the manual and thus there is a standard of care? Is licensing/permit/approval required before one can operate drones? Also relevant to discusswarranty issue.Since this problem is reasonably foreseeable, the directors can protect themselves by takingprecautionary measures such as scheduling regular maintenance to the drones to reduce thelikelihood of accidents. Potential duty of negligence and care for the operation of drones. Implications: is the loss tooremote? Neighbour principle rule.Question 5Part (a)Kusu Pte Ltd (KPL) owns a fleet of cruise boats which are chartered by cruise operators to taketourists around the Southern Islands off Singapore. On 1 January, KPL entered into a contractwith Seletar Shipbuilding Pte Ltd (SS) for the refurbishment and repair of equipment on boardKPL’s vessel “Jack Sparrow” at the Jurong Shipyard. KPL signed work orders on SS’ usual formscontaining its standard terms. The work orders referred to these standard conditions that wereprinted on the reverse side. According to the Agreement, the vessel was scheduled to bedelivered on 1 April but owing to delays and defective work, it was not ready for operation until30 May. The vessel was in fact chartered by Casual Cruises for 2 weeks from 5 April to take fivelarge groups of Chinese tourists around the Southern Islands. Casual Cruises is claimingdamages including loss of profits from KPL. At the same time, KPL is suing SS for damages whileSS is counter-claiming for outstanding payments for the repair works.