2321 records match your query:
|261. ||JULY 2012 Issue|
|Legislation and Case Notes: Framing Contractual Freedom within the Precept of 'Honesty, Reliability and Integrity'|
Alexander F.H. Loke  Sing JLS 174 (Jul)
Might a bank rely on a conclusive evidence clause against a customer when its employee has knowingly entered into unauthorised transactions on the customer's account? Thiswas one of the key issues before the Singapore High Court in Jiang Ou v. EFG Bank AG. The issue brought into question the considerations that shape the contours of contractual freedom, and how the law should respond when a conclusive evidence clause is relied upon to defeat the claim that the bank statement is inaccurate by reason of fraud perpetrated by the bank's employee. The decision invoked both the Unfair Contract Terms Act, as well as public policy at common law to defeat the bank's reliance on a conclusive evidence clause. While preventing the bank from shifting the consequences of fraud originating from within the banking organisation may be intuitively appealing, the decision carries broader implications for the drafting of conclusive evidence clauses and raises questions about the ambit of the common law prohibition.
|262. ||JULY 2012 Issue|
|Legislation and Case Notes: Striking a Balance Between Public Policy and Arbitration Policy in International Commercial Arbitration|
Nicholas Poon  Sing JLS 185 (Jul)
2010 was a momentous year for Singapore arbitration law with the High Court's decision in AJT v. AJU marking the first time an arbitral award was set aside on the ground of public policy in Singapore. Unsurprisingly, that decision generated some comments. AJU appealed and the Court of Appeal, comprising Chan C.J., Rajah J.A. and Phang J.A., agreed withAJU and reinstated the arbitral award. Although the final result is unquestionably right, the court's reasoning is arguably controversial. This case note queries whether the Court of Appeal had intended to go as far as the judgment seems to suggest. It suggests that in the final analysis, the promotion of arbitration is a policy that has limits, particularly when the State's public policies are involved.
|263. ||JULY 2012 Issue|
|Book Review: Travels of the Criminal Question: Cultural Embeddedness and Diffusion by Dario Melossi, Maximo Sozzo and Richard Sparks, eds.|
Mark Findlay  Sing JLS 196 (Jul)
This collection of workshop presentations refined into critical articles is excellent evidence of the service provided by the International Institute of the Sociology of Law (the "IISL") to the global community of socio-legal scholars interested in the sociology of law. For many years, the IISL has drawn together an elite band of researchers and thinkers in a summer workshop programme; the topics for which are selected to stimulate the broadest cutting-edge consideration around the intersection of law and society.
|264. ||JULY 2012 Issue|
|Book Review: Intellectual Property, Competition Law and Economics in Asia Deborah Healey 199 by R. Ian McEwin, ed.|
Deborah Healey  Sing JLS 199 (Jul)
This interesting and substantial book contains papers from a conference held in Singapore in 2009. Its focus is the problematic intersection between intellectual property and competition law and it looks at the issue from an Asian perspective. The area is one of tension in all jurisdictions but nowhere more so than in Asia, where both laws are relatively late arrivals on the scene. The subject matter is thus considered in the context of developing economies where the role of innovation is crucial to economic growth. The heavy representation of economists amongst the authors means that issues are thoroughly examined from an economic viewpoint. In addition, chapters consider issues of more general significance about the economic approach to competition law analysis and enforcement.
|265. ||JULY 2012 Issue|
|Book Review: A History of the Laws of War by Alexander Gillespie|
M. Sornarajah  Sing JLS 203 (Jul)
These three slim volumes are a labour of love. They are the result of prodigious research into the history of many wars fought from ancient times. They not only detail the extent of the cruelty that man can show to man during times of war, but also the restraints that have been worked out to control such cruelty.
|266. ||JULY 2012 Issue|
|Book Review: One Nation Under Surveillance: A New Social Contract to Defend Freedom Without Sacrificing Liberty|
Eugene K.B. Tan  Sing JLS 205 (Jul)
Institutional efforts to deal with the terrorism threat are in essence a collective action challenge: How do societies prevent terrorist ideology from establishing and gaining traction within a community? Assuming a terrorist attack takes place, especially by "home-grown" terrorists, what can society do to cope with the aftermath? How can societies fortify themselves to come out resiliently against such forces that seek to divide and destroy? These questions perhaps mask the central questions and concerns surrounding surveillance and intelligence - not just what is collected and processed but also how this information is used - in many jurisdictions. Surveillance and intelligence are integral parts of the larger strategy employed to ensure that societies can come out on top of the collective action challenge posed by terrorism.
|267. ||DECEMBER 2011 Issue|
|Product Due Diligence and the Suitability of Minibonds: Taking the Benefit of Hindsight|
Christopher Chen Chao-hung  Sing JLS 309 (Dec)
This article focuses on some problems arising from applying the product due diligence requirement of the suitability rule to complex financial products. The article draws several conclusions. First, the 'not unsuitable' test should be adopted to reduce legal uncertainty. Second, the comparative risk approach is a better choice in assessing the suitability of investment products. However, there must be further elaboration of the classification of product risk. Third, there must be a balance between risk and return to avoid risk mismatches in product design. Fourth, what have been termed minibonds raise the problem of documentation suitability. Though it is difficult to define suitable documentation, it may be worthwhile for regulators to establish some minimum standards that might have a great influence on product risk. Financial regulators may consider differentiating between financial products in assessing their suitability rather than adopting a one-size-fits-all approach.
|268. ||DECEMBER 2011 Issue|
|Causing Loss by Unlawful Means|
Lee Pey Woan  Sing JLS 330 (Dec)
In the past, a number of English authorities have suggested that unlawful interference with trade (now also known as "causing loss by unlawful means" is a "genus" tort that provides the rationale as well as framework for analysing various economic torts including intimidation and conspiracy by unlawful means. However, this view has been decidedly rejected by the House of Lords in OBG Ltd. v. Allan. The majority judges in that case restricted the tort to one that redresses only unjustified interferences with third-party liberty. Since it has a multi-party structure, it is conceptually distinct from cases where liability has been imposed for direct (two-party) interferences. On this view, two-party intimidation, unlawful means conspiracy and causing loss by unlawful means are separate torts despite their common reliance on an independent legal wrong. It also means that there is no single thread that runs through this "family" of economic torts. While the element of illegality is an essential and common constituent of these torts, it is not the sole element that justifies the tort. Rather, each tort is founded on the combination of a particular course of conduct with the requisite unlawfulness. Consequently (and more controversially), it is now no longer meaningful to identify a single conception of "unlawful means" that is applicable to all these torts. In each case, it is essential to ensure that the illegality constitutes the tort only if it produces the type of conduct that the tort is designed to deter.
|269. ||DECEMBER 2011 Issue|
|Seditious in Singapore! Free Speech and the Offence of Promoting Ill-Will and Hostility Between Different Racial Groups|
Jaclyn Ling-Chien Neo  Sing JLS 351 (Dec)
In 2005, the archaic laws of sedition were summoned to counteract speech considered offensive to racial and religious groups in Singapore. Under the Sedition Act, it is seditious to, inter alia, promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population. In a later case involving religious proselytisation, a Christian couple was charged and convicted of sedition under the same section. This article examines this new phenomenon. It investigates the manner in which these laws have been employed and jurisprudentially developed to restrain speech on race and/or religion in Singapore. The article argues that the current state of the law is highly problematic for its adverse impact on free speech as well as for its conceptual confusions with alternative bases for restraining speech. It contends that failure to extricate the existing conceptual confusions is adverse to free speech and community integration in the long run. A threefold legal framework is proposed to provide clearer guidance on inter-racial and inter-religious interaction within the Singaporean society.[Full Text]
|270. ||DECEMBER 2011 Issue|
|The 'Whom's' in Online Dissemination of Copyright Works: To Whom and by Whom is The Communication Made?|
Ng-Loy Wee Loon  Sing JLS 373 (Dec)
The right of 'communication to the public' was introduced into the Singapore Copyright Act in 2004, as part of its implementation of art. 8 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty (the "WCT") 1996. The purpose of this right is clear enough: it is to allow right-holders to control, inter alia, the dissemination of their copyright works via the internet. There is a recent case in Singapore which involved an unauthorised transmission of copyright works via the internet. Yet the right-holder in this case lost in its claim for infringement of its right of 'communication to the public'. This defeat brings into focus the two essential elements of this right: namely, the two 'Whom's'. To whom is the communication made - is it to "the public"? By whom is the communication made - is it the defendant in the infringement action? This article suggests that the Singapore approach in answering these two questions is overly strict, and may be inconsistent with what the promulgators intended for the right of 'communication to the public'. This assessment is made in the light of the travaux pre'paratoires of the WCT, as well as developments in Australia and the EU.