Chitchat Daniel Ong whining that keyboard warrior ls

[Scrooball (clone)]

 

[ToaPehGong]

Did he feel battered when he did his house tour for his 3 million dollar house?

 

[Leongsam]

I can understand his frustration because I too often get worked up when rules are set and laws are made by people who don't have a clue how a business runs and what it is like to take financial risks in order generate wealth which is where the tax dollars that pay these bureaucrats come from in the first place.

 

[Scrooball (clone)]

Let's look at his statement and here's the exact quote " Being dragged into a case from 2012-2016 where a errant 3rd party agent we used to hire foreign workers submitted documents and salaries we were not aware of till 2019, but as directors of the company, liable. "

I don't understand how an owner.... can say he leaves everything to a 'third party agent' and lament that as directors of the company he was held liable. Isn't that the case all along? We are not talking about an agent changing the font color of your poster mind you.... we are talking about pay packages of staff that run to hundreds of thousands.

 

[Leongsam]

Let's look at his statement and here's the exact quote " Being dragged into a case from 2012-2016 where a errant 3rd party agent we used to hire foreign workers submitted documents and salaries we were not aware of till 2019, but as directors of the company, liable. "

I don't understand how an owner.... can say he leaves everything to a 'third party agent' and lament that as directors of the company he was held liable. Isn't that the case all along? We are not talking about an agent changing the font color of your poster mind you.... we are talking about pay packages of staff that run to hundreds of thousands.

You hire a driver to do deliveries for you. He has an accident while driving and kills someone. The police charge you instead of the driver because you own the vehicle he was driving.

Very often the law is an ass.

 

[nayr69sg]

You hire a driver to do deliveries for you. He has an accident while driving and kills someone. The police charge you instead of the driver because you own the vehicle he was driving.

Very often the law is an ass.

When I attended a medical conference in USA there was a company selling their services to structure professional corporation so that there is no money if people sue it.

Some doctor sent medical office assistant to go buy pizza for lunch. She crashed and killed people during the errand.

The victim's family learned she worked for doctor. They sued doctor as he has more money than the assistant. They won. As she was on a task sent by her employer.

The law....

 

[Confuseous]

His post is that of a very confused kid. He denied the accusations way way back.
Did he not verify the accusations before he opened his big mouth, denying?
Anyone else would have sought out the matter fast. And furious.
Clown.

 

[Scrooball (clone)]

You hire a driver to do deliveries for you. He has an accident while driving and kills someone. The police charge you instead of the driver because you own the vehicle he was driving.

Very often the law is an ass.

Clearly, u have never run a business or actually find yourself sitting in a management role.

In the past, when a passenger hails a Grab car service, there is no insurance. Grab doesn't own the driver or the car, so that must be right, u guess? But today, Grab has to shell out insurance for all passengers who hail a Grab service. This real-life example should suffice.

 

[Leongsam]

When I attended a medical conference in USA there was a company selling their services to structure professional corporation so that there is no money if people sue it.

Some doctor sent medical office assistant to go buy pizza for lunch. She crashed and killed people during the errand.

The victim's family learned she worked for doctor. They sued doctor as he has more money than the assistant. They won. As she was on a task sent by her employer.

The law....

Like I said the law is an ass.

 

[Leongsam]

Clearly, u have never run a business or actually find yourself sitting in a management role.

In the past, when a passenger hails a Grab car service, there is no insurance. Grab doesn't own the driver or the car, so that must be right, u guess? But today, Grab has to shell out insurance for all passengers who hail a Grab service. This real-life example should suffice.

I don't know what my role in business or management has got to do with it. I'm merely pointing out that certain laws are ridiculous.

 

[apogee]

You hire a driver to do deliveries for you. He has an accident while driving and kills someone. The police charge you instead of the driver because you own the vehicle he was driving.

Very often the law is an ass.

What an absurd analogy?

 

[Scrooball (clone)]

So anyone who criticize him are keyboard warriors eh...here’s a few gems from the Straits Times FB article

 

[pvtpublic]

You hire a driver to do deliveries for you. He has an accident while driving and kills someone. The police charge you instead of the driver because you own the vehicle he was driving.

Very often the law is an ass.

your scenario above is fictitious and will never happen.

a business that appoints an agent to act on its behalf is liable for the acts of the agent. this is a very straight forward premise.

the business is free to seek damages against the agent if the agent screws up.

 

[Scrooball (clone)]

The 'new' Leongsam speaks like an 8-year-old child sometimes... sometimes the OG is still the best.

 

[Leongsam]

your scenario above is fictitious and will never happen.

a business that appoints an agent to act on its behalf is liable for the acts of the agent. this is a very straight forward premise.

the business is free to seek damages against the agent if the agent screws up.

The law is never straightforward. If it was there would be no need for lawyers.

britannica.com

Agency - Liability of principal for acts of agents


6-7 minutes






Continental European law classifies the undertaking of transactions in the place of another as agency only when the transactions are legal. It excludes other acts, including unlawful acts, so that, when dealing with the law of agency, the rules concerning the liability of a master for the torts of his servant do not come into consideration.

Following the lead of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., the opposite view has been taken in English and American literature. The predominant opinion treats the liability of a master for the tortious conduct of his servant as a part of agency law since these cases logically come within the maxim qui facit per alium, facit per se (“he who acts through another, acts himself”). The doctrine of respondeat superior (“that the master must answer”) is therefore treated as a part of agency law, even though the rationale behind the master’s liability is that he has assigned to a servant under his control a task that unforeseeably results in damage to a third person. On the other hand, consequences flowing from an agency relationship rest on the idea that an authorized person performs legal acts within his competence not on his own behalf but for the principal. A growing view in the modern literature recognizes, however, that “the two basic relations are strange bedfellows.”

According to English and American law, the liability of a principal for his agent’s torts in the ordinary course of his employment depends upon the existence of a master–servant relationship. If the principal and agent stand in a master–servant relationship to each other, the master is vicariously liable for his servant’s tortious conduct committed within the course of his employment irrespective of any personal fault on the master’s part. This doctrine of respondeat superior arose from the belief that, since the head of the household or of the economic enterprise exercises control, he should pay for the harm caused by its members.
Such a relationship presupposes a degree of physical control by the master over his servant, which may exist, for example, over the driver of the principal’s delivery truck but is lacking over the principal’s factor or broker. The other major limitation to the doctrine is that the servant’s tortious conduct must be committed within the servant’s course of employment. Generally, this includes conduct that is not a serious departure from that authorized, both in manner and space, by the master and that is actuated at least in part by a motive to serve the master. Under this principle, the master’s vicarious liability extends in some instances even to claims arising from the servant’s intentional torts.

If no master–servant relationship exists between the parties, the principal’s liability for the torts of his agent is far more restricted. For example, a principal is not liable for the harm caused by the negligent physical conduct of his nonservant agent. He is liable, however, for any other torts of his agent that either are authorized or the commission of which normally are made possible by the agent’s position. The chief example of such conduct is tortious misrepresentation by the agent.

 

[Leongsam]

Too make it even more complicated :

garrettham.com

Agent Liability To Third Party | Agency Law | Garrett Ham


5-6 minutes



In this post, I discuss agent liability to third parties. I further discuss the danger it poses to agents as they perform their duties.

Photo by Mark Moz is licensed under CC 2.0. This content uses referral links.
Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes
An agent is someone another person has authorized to act on his or her behalf. The person on whose behalf the agent acts is called the principal. An agent may perform a variety of tasks on behalf of the principal. This can include entering into binding agreements with third parties.
The question then becomes, What personal liability to third parties can the agent incur? Must agents honor contracts they facilitate if the principal fails to perform?
The question of agent liability to a third party is vital.
The nature of the relationship between the agent and the third party—and consequently, the nature of agent liability to the third party—is fact-specific. It depends on the circumstances of the agency relationship and the type of agency relationship that exists.
Disclosed Principal
If an agent conducts authorized business on behalf of a disclosed principal, the agent generally does not incur liability. (A principal is a disclosed principal when the third party knows the principal’s identity.)
Consequently, any contract that the agent enters into is a contract between that third party and the principal. The agent is not a party to the contract. The third-party can therefore not hold the agent liable for breach of contract.
In the case of disclosed principals, there is usually no agent liability to third parties.
Unidentified Principal
If an agent conducts business on behalf of an unidentified principal, the agent is a party to the contract. (An unidentified principal exists when the third party knows a principal exists but does not know the principal’s identity.)
So, in these cases, the agent may be liable for a breach of contract.
There is an exception to this general rule. When the agent and third party agree that the agent is acting on behalf of an undisclosed principal, the agent is not a party to the contract. The third-party must consent to such an arrangement. Without such an agreement, there is agent liability to the third party.
Undisclosed Principal
Undisclosed principals exist when agents fail to disclose that they are working as an agent. To the third party, it appears that the agent is acting on his or her own behalf. In such circumstances, the agent is a party to the contract. There, therefore, exists agent liability to the third party.

Agent Liability
The differences between disclosed, unidentified, and undisclosed principals are vital. They protect innocent third parties. For agents to escape liability, they must disclose the existence of an agency relationship. They must also disclose the principal’s identity.
Just disclosing the existence of an agency relationship is not enough. Without identifying the principal, the third party remains ignorant of the identity of the other party to the contract. Therefore, the identity of the principal must also be disclosed. Otherwise, the third party may hold the person they do know—the agent—liable for performance of the contract.
Implied Warranty of Authority
Whenever an agent signs a contract with a third party, there is an implied warranty of authority. That is, there is an understanding that the agent is authorized to perform the act. Consequently, a third party may file a lawsuit against an agent that does not have the actual authority to enter into the agreement.
If, however, the agent states that he does not make a warranty of authority, or the third party knows that the agent does not have the necessary authority, there is no warranty of authority. Therefore, the agent should not be found liable in any lawsuit for violating that warranty.
Agent Liability to Third Party
The issue of agent liability to third parties is important. Most agents do not want to incur liability for commitments they make on another’s behalf. It is, therefore, important for agents—and principals and third parties—to understand when agent liability attaches.

 

[Scrooball (clone)]

Trying to impress us with your google search skills? Lol.... amateur hour

 

[millim6868]

Get caught n try to blame agent , he forgot how much he pocket for so long

 

[Leongsam]

Get caught n try to blame agent , he forgot how much he pocket for so long

When I was working in manufacturing Singapore had just passed a law that penalised employers with a jail term if someone without a proper work permit was found working on the premises.

Security at the factory was performed by a security agency.

One night one of the regular guards that does night shift called in sick and the security company had to scramble to find a replacement. Unfortunately the scruffy character they came up with was on a social visit pass and had also overstayed his welcome.

This dastardly deed was uncovered because the ministry concerned happened to do a spot check.

So who is liable for the fact that an illegal overstayer was found working on the premises? The agency? The company? If the company is liable who should serve the prison sentence? The MD? HR Manager? Security manager?

I will provide details of the outcome later.

 

[pvtpublic]

The law is never straightforward. If it was there would be no need for lawyers.

britannica.com

Agency - Liability of principal for acts of agents


6-7 minutes






Continental European law classifies the undertaking of transactions in the place of another as agency only when the transactions are legal. It excludes other acts, including unlawful acts, so that, when dealing with the law of agency, the rules concerning the liability of a master for the torts of his servant do not come into consideration.

Following the lead of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., the opposite view has been taken in English and American literature. The predominant opinion treats the liability of a master for the tortious conduct of his servant as a part of agency law since these cases logically come within the maxim qui facit per alium, facit per se (“he who acts through another, acts himself”). The doctrine of respondeat superior (“that the master must answer”) is therefore treated as a part of agency law, even though the rationale behind the master’s liability is that he has assigned to a servant under his control a task that unforeseeably results in damage to a third person. On the other hand, consequences flowing from an agency relationship rest on the idea that an authorized person performs legal acts within his competence not on his own behalf but for the principal. A growing view in the modern literature recognizes, however, that “the two basic relations are strange bedfellows.”

According to English and American law, the liability of a principal for his agent’s torts in the ordinary course of his employment depends upon the existence of a master–servant relationship. If the principal and agent stand in a master–servant relationship to each other, the master is vicariously liable for his servant’s tortious conduct committed within the course of his employment irrespective of any personal fault on the master’s part. This doctrine of respondeat superior arose from the belief that, since the head of the household or of the economic enterprise exercises control, he should pay for the harm caused by its members.
Such a relationship presupposes a degree of physical control by the master over his servant, which may exist, for example, over the driver of the principal’s delivery truck but is lacking over the principal’s factor or broker. The other major limitation to the doctrine is that the servant’s tortious conduct must be committed within the servant’s course of employment. Generally, this includes conduct that is not a serious departure from that authorized, both in manner and space, by the master and that is actuated at least in part by a motive to serve the master. Under this principle, the master’s vicarious liability extends in some instances even to claims arising from the servant’s intentional torts.

If no master–servant relationship exists between the parties, the principal’s liability for the torts of his agent is far more restricted. For example, a principal is not liable for the harm caused by the negligent physical conduct of his nonservant agent. He is liable, however, for any other torts of his agent that either are authorized or the commission of which normally are made possible by the agent’s position. The chief example of such conduct is tortious misrepresentation by the agent.

what u highlighted refers to "no master-servant" ie no principal-agent

where there is a master-servant relationship, it is very clear the master (principal) is liable for the acts of the servant (agent)