Business Law Introduction: Singapore Legal System

<p>Harsh sentences for minor crimes (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The dependence on judicial precedents (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Specific performance of a contract (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Future cases must follow established precedents (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Civil Law (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Doctrine of Stare Decisis (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Judicial Precedents (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Statutes are interpreted narrowly compared to common law. (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Case Law (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Common law provides legal remedies, whereas equity provides equitable remedies. (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Queen Elizabeth I (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Only common law pre-12 November 1993 continued to apply. (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Provisions in local acts will prevail over conflicting English statutes. (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Decisions made on particular issues must be followed in similar future cases. (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>They serve as examples for judges to refer to in making decisions on new cases. (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The feudal system (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>To create a structured and predictable legal environment. (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>They must be adhered to by judges in similar legal disputes. (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>India and Australia (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Due to a lack of written laws in feudal societies. (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>They briefly interrupted British influence but did not eliminate it. (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Lower courts must adhere to the reasoning and decisions of higher courts. (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Would the damage have happened BUT FOR the defendant's negligence? (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The doctor was not liable as the death would have occurred regardless. (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Whether the plaintiff's injuries were foreseeable consequences of the defendant's conduct. (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Both defendants were jointly liable for materially contributing to the injury. (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Breach of duty (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>It identifies whether the defendant's breach led directly to the plaintiff's loss. (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>If the harm could not have been predicted by a reasonable person. (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Whether the defendant’s actions were negligent compared to a typical person's actions. (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The losses were reasonably foreseeable. (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The Wagon Mound (No.1) (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>An intervening event can eliminate liability for subsequent damages. (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>A spectator gets injured while watching a dangerous sport. (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Showing that a reasonable person would have acted differently. (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>An intervening act that breaks the chain of causation. (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>From the perspective of a reasonable person at the time of the breach. (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>There is a direct link between the defendant's breach and the plaintiff's loss. (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Reasonable person standard (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The warning was effective only for sighted persons (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Res Ipsa Loquitur (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>That the defendant breached a duty of care (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>It could allow lawsuits for every unfortunate incident (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>D was not liable due to lack of proximity (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The plaintiff to prove their claim (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The close relationship required for duty of care (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

A branch of law developed to address inadequacies in common law, aiming for fairness and justice.

Law primarily based on judge-made precedents and decisions.

Legal system mainly based on codified laws and legislation, not on judicial precedent.

A remedy in equity allowing a party to an agreement to be forced to fulfill their contractual obligations.

An equitable remedy ordering a person to do or refrain from doing a particular act.

Legal principles derived from previous court rulings and decisions.

Written law, usually organized into codes, forming the basis of a legal system.

Legal solutions that don't provide a just or suitable response.

English statutes and case law that apply in Singapore, limited by the Application of English Law Act (AELA).

Application of English Law Act; the law specifying which English laws apply to Singapore.

A legal system where law evolves through court decisions and customs, not solely from statutes.

A historical document making English law applicable to Singapore.

A common law system influenced by English law.

When local laws conflict with English statutes, local laws prevail, per the AELA.

Cases are preferred over statutes within a common law system.

The development of common law emerged from the feudal system, where appointed nobles upheld local customs and judicial decisions gradually became legal principles.

The doctrine of 'stare decisis' means 'let the decision stand' - judges must follow previous decisions in similar cases.

When a judge follows a previous decision from a same-level or higher court in a similar case, the precedent is binding.

The use of judicial precedents aims to ensure certainty, uniformity, and consistency in legal rulings.

Common law arose from judge-made decisions, gradually shaping legal principles based on court rulings.

From 1819 to 1965, British influence in Singapore was extensive in trade, politics, and justice, shaping Singapore's legal system.

The legal principle that establishes a direct link between the defendant's actions and the plaintiff's harm. It asks: 'Would the harm have occurred BUT FOR the defendant's actions?'

A legal test used to determine factual causation. It asks whether the harm would have occurred if the defendant's negligence had not taken place.

A case where the court held that the defendant's breach of duty of care was not the cause of death, as the deceased would have died even with proper treatment.

When the actions of multiple defendants contribute to the plaintiff's harm, each defendant can be held liable.

A case where both defendants were held liable for the plaintiff's injuries because their actions materially contributed to the harm.

The legal principle that determines whether a defendant's negligence is too far removed from the harm to be considered a cause.

Used to establish whether a defendant's negligence was sufficiently foreseeable to hold them liable for the harm caused.

When multiple defendants are held legally responsible for the plaintiff's harm, sharing liability for the damages.

This test is used to determine if the defendant should be held liable for the plaintiff's damage. If the defendant could reasonably have foreseen the type of damage suffered by the plaintiff at the time of their breach, then they are liable.

A landmark case that established the "reasonably foreseeable test" in negligence law. It determined that the defendant was not liable for the fire damage because it was not reasonably foreseeable. The defendant was only liable for the oil pollution, which was foreseeable.

Damage is considered "too remote" if it was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's negligence. This means the defendant is not liable for that damage.

Latin for "new intervening act." This is a legal doctrine that breaks the chain of causation, meaning the defendant is not liable for the damage caused after the intervening event. This event must be independent and unexpected.

An event that happens after the defendant's negligent act, which may contribute to the plaintiff's damage. This can be a separate event, an act of nature, or even the plaintiff's own actions.

This refers to financial loss that is not directly caused by physical damage, but is a consequence of the defendant's negligence. Courts often find these cases difficult because there is no tangible harm.

A Latin phrase meaning "to one who is willing, no harm is done." This defense applies when the plaintiff willingly accepted the risk, preventing them from suing the defendant for injuries.

This means the plaintiff understood and accepted the risks involved in a situation. If they consented to the risk, they cannot later sue the defendant for injuries resulting from that risk.

A close and direct relationship between the defendant's actions and the plaintiff's harm, necessary for a duty of care to exist.

A legal test used to determine if imposing a duty of care on the defendant is fair, just, and reasonable in the circumstances.

When the defendant fails to meet the standard of care expected of a reasonable person in the same circumstances.

A legal standard used to assess whether the defendant's actions were reasonable or negligent, considering what a hypothetical 'reasonable person' would have done in the same situation.

A legal principle that allows the plaintiff to establish negligence without proving the defendant's specific actions, when the harm is clearly caused by negligence.

The legal responsibility placed on the plaintiff to prove all elements of their claim, including negligence.

The actual harm or loss suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the defendant's negligence.

When multiple defendants contribute to the plaintiff's harm, each defendant can be held liable, even if their individual actions were not the sole cause.