According to Section 1573 if section 157 is breached the director would have to

According to section 1573 if section 157 is breached

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 profits made by him, or be liable for losses suffered by the company and that he would be guilty of an offence. 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 has an indirect interest in that transaction, as soon as the relevant facts have come to his knowledge, he must declare the nature of his interest at the meeting of directors. Hence, Yeo is 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?
Image of page 10
If the drones malfunctions and causes damages, the directors can be held liable as they were aware of the dangers of using drones. Directors have a duty to care to their employees in ensuring a safe and hazard-free working environment. Hence if the drones do result in personal injuries, the Board of Directors can be held liable under the tort of negligence since they were warned about the dangers of drones and they breached it by using the drone nonetheless. Is there 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 discuss warranty issue. Since this problem is reasonably foreseeable, the directors can protect themselves by taking precautionary measures such as scheduling regular maintenance to the drones to reduce the likelihood of accidents. Potential duty of negligence and care for the operation of drones. Implications: is the loss too remote? Neighbour principle rule. Question 5 Part (a) Kusu Pte Ltd (KPL) owns a fleet of cruise boats which are chartered by cruise operators to take tourists around the Southern Islands off Singapore. On 1 January, KPL entered into a contract with Seletar Shipbuilding Pte Ltd (SS) for the refurbishment and repair of equipment on board KPL’s vessel “Jack Sparrow” at the Jurong Shipyard. KPL signed work orders on SS’ usual forms containing its standard terms. The work orders referred to these standard conditions that were printed on the reverse side. According to the Agreement, the vessel was scheduled to be delivered on 1 April but owing to delays and defective work, it was not ready for operation until 30 May. The vessel was in fact chartered by Casual Cruises for 2 weeks from 5 April to take five large groups of Chinese tourists around the Southern Islands. Casual Cruises is claiming damages including loss of profits from KPL. At the same time, KPL is suing SS for damages while SS is counter-claiming for outstanding payments for the repair works.
Image of page 11
Image of page 12

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture