2.1 The Concept of Uberrimae fidei in Marine Insurance Law
Section 17 of the Marine Insurance Act 1906 (UK) requires parties to a marine insurance contract to observe utmost good faith. It is clear from the wording of the section that the duty is to be observed by both parties to a marine insurance contract. Although it is a mutual obligation, operating both ways, in practice the duty of utmost good faith has more than often been applied in the context of the duty of the assured to disclose.
Lord Mansfield (founder of the concept of utmost faith) in Pawson v. Watson stated that the remedy of avoidance of the policy as a result of the breach of the duty of good faith by non-disclosure, does not derive from the contract, but from a rule of law, holding that
"...by the law of merchants, all dealings must be fair
…show more content…
The latter party will well be able to rescind where such party had been induced by a misstatement to enter into the contract. This is the general rule.
In certain contracts however , where a party to a contract concealed something he knew to be material, the contract will be voidable at the instance of the aggrieved party. These contracts are known as contracts of the utmost good faith, or uberrima fides. The prime example which is of course contracts of insurance.
Insurance contracts are of a fiduciary nature, i.e. it is based upon mutual trust and confidence between the insurer and the assured. It would therefore be inequitable to apply the caveat emptor rule, as the information needed by the parties in order to contract is not as apparent as with e.g. a contract of sale, where the subject matter can be inspected by the buyer. Therefore the common law duty that applies to insurance contracts is the "...much more stringent one of uberrima fides (utmost good
In the presented case of Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore services. Inc., Joseph Oncale who is the plaintiff was an employee of Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc. the defendant. Oncale was a victim of continuous sexual, physical, and mental harassment by three of his co-workers, two of whom were in a superior position than him at work. He was working in a team containing eight men of which the three that were making his life miserable were part of. The three co-workers were humiliating and assaulting Oncale sexually to the point where one of them essentially threatened to even rape him. Oncale reported the issue to his supervisor but nothing was done or there were no actions taken against the co-workers that were harassing him. Therefore,
The Scalera V Non-Marine Underwriters, Lloyd’s of London (2000) was a case held in the Supreme Court of Canada, which created great public interest due to the different perspectives of minority and majority judges involved in the case. The case itself revolves around an insurance policy and exclusion clauses, however the underlying legal policies, principles and rules are the main interest of the judges and affect their reasoning in regards to where the onus of proof lies in relation to consent between the plaintiff and the defendant.
The case of “Stanton v Callaghan” confirms the existence of immunity from suit for expert witnesses in court cases involving negligence during “1998” as dictated by (Bailii.org, 1998). This case occurred prior to the Jones v Kaney case, which was argued for during 2011. In the Stanton v Callaghan case, the plaintiff, Mr Stanton, approached a structural engineer, Mr Callaghan, to prepare a report on the damaged property, stating that the work carried out previously, with the agreement of the insurers, was not appropriate because it feel apart, so that he could claim for a sum of money from the insurance company to carry out the total underpinning work for the property....
Within the United States Marine Corps, Marines are held to the highest responsibility of duty and throughout daily living, they are seen as all well rounded personnel who perform tasks and missions with honesty and truthfulness. A Marine that shows he or she has honesty and truthfulness is seen as having proper integrity and is capable of being in an environment that requires one to perform a task that one believes to be right and agree with moral principles. A Marine should always show the importance of having integrity from boot camp, to its relation in the Marine Corps, and in combat scenarios.
Good faith was described by Lord Bingham in Interfoto as “playing fair, coming clean, or putting one’s cards face upwards on the table.” It owes its origins to the law of equity and can be traced back to the case of Carter v Boehm , where Lord Mansfield first introduced it in insurance contracts: “Good faith forbids either party by concealing what he privately knows, to draw the other into a bargain, from his ignorance of that fact and his believing of the contrary”. Lord Mansfield attempted, but failed to extend good faith as a general principle in English law. Lord Hobhouse pointed in The Star Sea that Lord Mansfield’s equitable principle of good faith only survived limited classes of transactions as English law developed “preferring benefits of simplicity and certainty.” This was reasserted in Interfoto where Lord Bingham introduced piecemeal solutions, and further in Walford v Miles where Lord Ackner iterated the position that there is no overriding principle of good faith in English law as the “concept of a duty to carry on negotiations in good faith is inherently repugnant to the adversarial position of the parties when involved in negotiations… a duty to negotiate in good faith is as unworkable in practic...
Given that it lies within the domain of equity, the case law indicates a great flexibility in its application, both in the substantive requirements of proof demanded by the courts and in the manner in which the courts will satisfy the equity. It is the first of these aspects of the doctrine that I will examine in this essay. I will look at the shift in the evidentiary requirements and what a representation (or an assurance of rights), a reliance (a change of position on the basis of that assurance) and a detriment (or unconscionable disadvantage) - the three pre-requisites for a successful claim - have come to mean with regard to case law and in particular the judgement of Judge Robert Walker in the Court of Appeal in Gillett v. Holt[1], in which the plaintiff had been given repeated assurances over many decades that he would inherit the defendant's estate, and remained in service to him at least p... ... middle of paper ... ... operty, 16th Ed, Butterworths K. Gray & S.F Gray - Land Law, 2nd Ed, Butterworths Professor Cedric D Bell - Land: The Law of Real Property, 3rd Ed, Old
The compensation philosophy of Maersk is started by identifying desired outcomes and various goals for entire organization. The Company uses incentive arrangements to secure a high degree of coincidence of interests between the Company's Management and the shareholders, and also to strengthen the retention of key employees. salaries are benchmarked with the industry. Salaries are dependent on the position so each job has a job grade and salary band (min/max) and you will be paid within that band. Increases are based on your yearly performance appraisal. The Company wishes to promote a pay for performance philosophy where the opportunity for an annual cash incentive is dependent on the achievement of:
To begin a claim in professional negligence, you must begin with establishing that there is a professional duty of care owed towards the plaintiff. The most significant case in relation to professional negligence is Hedley Byrne v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465. This is because for the first time, it established that a third party relying upon a statement made the him/her may be owed a duty of care by the maker of that statement. The outcome from the Hedley Byrne v Heller Partners (1964) established that a duty of care would be owed (in relation to statements) where there is a ‘special relationship’ between the giver and recipient of the advice or statement. Despite this, a definition for a ‘special relationship’ was not fully defined, however it tends to go by meeting these three requirements; a reliance by the claimant of the defendant’s special skill and judgement; knowledge, or reasonable expectation of knowledge on the part of the defendant, that the claimant was relying on the statement; and that it is reasonable in the ...
Corbin, J. (n.d.). Confidentiality & the duty to warn: ethical and legal implications for the
Cecil Wright, ‘Introduction to the Law of Torts’ (1942) 8 Cambridge Law Journal 238, 243.
Section 7 of the CECO stipulates that the liability for death or personal injury resulting from negligence could not be excluded or restricted. For ‘other loss or damage’, the liability can be excluded only if the exclusion clause satisfies the requirement of reasonableness. And this section should remain unchanged.
Misrepresentation – giving a false statement to the other party with the intentions to benefit or to exploit the other party than the law can end the contract in that case.
It has enabled a distinction to be drawn between burden of proof and burden of evidential. But Viscount Sankey’s ‘golden thread’ dictum expressed a disposable of reference to statutory exception which may helped to induce lack of care and enshrines its value. Now the British court have an opportunity to retrieve the situation as there are in different position under exercise their power to be more
Tort is a branch of private law that deals with civil wrong committed against an individual, including legal entities such as companies rather than the state. Tort law can be described as a body of obligations and remedies applied by courts in any civil proceeding to offer relieve to an individual who has just suffered emotional or physical harm as a result of the wrongful acts of others. In this case, the individual who suffers a personal injury is known as the plaintiff, while the person responsible for the infliction of the injury is referred to as tortfeasor or respondent. In essence, this law has many goals, one being that of assisting the injured to recover through either monetary compensation or even mental compensation in order to promote civility, discourage private retaliation and deter future wrongful actions.
Marine Insurance is defined by section 7 of the Marine Insurance Act of 1909 as: