Individual  Assignment
TECHNOLOGY PARK MALAYSIA

AQ004-3-M
Business Law

NPCMF1807MBA

HAND OUT DATE: 4th Feb 2019

HAND IN DATE: 13th June 2019
WEIGHTAGE: 50%
STUDENT ID: NP000269

INSTRUCTIONS TO CANDIDATES:

1 Submit your assignment at the administrative counter

2 Students are advised to underpin their answers with the use of

references (cited using the Harvard Name System of Referencing)

3 Late submission will be awarded zero (0) unless Extenuating

Circumstances (EC) are upheld

4 Cases of plagiarism will be penalized

5 The assignment should be bound in an appropriate style (comb bound

or stapled)

6 Where the assignment should be submitted in both hardcopy and

softcopy, the softcopy of the written assignment and source code
(where appropriate) should be on a CD in an envelope / CD cover and
attached to the hardcopy

7 You must obtain 50% overall to pass this module

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

It gives me great pleasure to complete this assignment of Business Law. At this point of time, I
would like to express my heart felt gratitude to the people who have help me in the completion of
this project.

Firstly, I would like to thank my subject teacher Mr. Radha Krishna Pathak for this guidance and
support through out the completion of this assignment, for his patience, motivation, immense
knowledge. His continuous guidance has been of great help through out my writing.

Last but not the least, I would also like to thank my family, friends and my parents who gave me
relevant information for this study and their support for me spiritually made successful completion
of my assignment.

Shruti Jaiswal

NP000269

 
 
 Table of Contents
 
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 2

2. Case Analysis .............................................................................................................. 4

a. Case 1: .................................................................................................................................. 4
b. Case 2: .................................................................................................................................. 5

3. Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 7

References .......................................................................................................................... 9

 
 
 1. Introduction
 

Law can be defined as ‘set of rules’ as the procedures of conduct that is been recognized and
forced by the state as to control and as well regulate the bearing of people, to protect their
property and promised rights with a view to secure honesty, peaceful living and social security
(Tulsian, 2008).

Business law can be defined as structured set of the primarily dispositive legal norms that
regulates property relations of skilled transfer of assets that aims at selling and purchasing the
exchange values of goods rather than their utility(Trivun, Silajdzic, & Mahmutcehajic, 2018).
Law covers a wide variety of matters and plays a significant role in society; different laws have
been made to protect the rights of the people. Law can be classified as public & private law,
common & equity law, civil & criminal law, substantive & procedural law.

Civil law is associated with the rights and duties of individuals towards each other. Some
examples of civil law are, law of contract, law of tort, law of property, succession and family
law (Gulshan S. S., 2006).

Tort is invasion of a private or civil right belonging to the individuals whereas crime is breach
of public right and duties that affects whole community. In tort criminal and is a compulsory
thing that should compensate the injured party. “Tort law provides a person who has been
harmed as the result of the wrongful acts of others the opportunity to bring a civil action for the
harm or suffering caused. The person who is been injured or maintains budgetary damages as
the result of the wrongful act of another is referred to as the plaintiff (Weissman, Pinder, &
Berns, 2016)”.

In Nepal tort law is new and beginning stage enacted in 2074. It was established when the
Parliament of Nepal passed, and the President of Nepal authenticated, the Civil Code Act
2074 (2017). The Civil Code in Nepal came outcome on Bhadra 1, 2075 (August 17, 2018).

2  
 
In Malaysia law context of tort is been regard as a wrong and as well most untechnical sense.
The better definition of tortious liability, which arises from the breach of a duty mostly, and is
secure by law where this duty is towards persons generally and its breach, is redressable for an
action for damages.

3  
 
2. Case Analysis

Duty of Care mainly refers to the legal obligation that people have & ensures those on their
premises or within the immediate vicinity can have a reasonable expectation of protection
from harm as a result of the actions of either themselves or of others, while the term applies
to virtually all legal cases, it is commonly associated with the operation of a motor vehicle,
the serves alcohol and the generally accepted responsibilities of home and business owners.
A person who interrupts the duty of care by acting in a very negligent matter is then
predisposed for any harm that another person suffers as a result of his behavior.

a. Case 1:

According to case 1 the scenario concerns the law relating to the tort of negligence. This
scenario includes tesla car and driver. The accident involves the tesla car that were
functioning in autopilot mode, and as he was the hands-on caution observed by apple software
engineer Wei Huang, the driver hand was not sensed on the wheel for six seconds 150 meters
of unobstructed of a concrete divider which clearly should the absence of driver attention
secondly, in the view of divider that is seen ahead and no action was taken by the driver which
shows the lack of necessary training and licensing practices been provided by the licensing or
manufacturer to drive in the specific situations.

The first step is to establish the duty of care. The car is also automated and designed to work
in autonomous manner to certain extent, the manufacturer has a percentage of duty of care. If
the car manufacturer had advised the driver not to use manual functions and features
implemented in the car then the responsibility is of the manufacturer otherwise driver should
be punished. Department of transport will also be responsible if the fault will be detected for
giving the license to the manufacturer and the vehicle owed other on the road includes duty of
car.

4  
 
The next step shows that whether the duty owed to deliberate was breached. According to
tesla car that which have been occurred by accident in California that killed the driver as the
car was in autopilot mode and as he was given several system’s warning was given to the
driver and took no action as being the operator this shows the negligence being done by the
driver, and it shows that driver was not concentrating on the road when this accident happened
and this can also be risky for the pedestrians walking on the road.

In this exercise of the Tort law, the fact states that although the car was operating on autopilot
mode the driver of the car was given several warning like visual and audible hands but he
didn’t control the car and the accident occurred. This doesn’t show the quality of skilled and
experienced driver. As, he didn’t follow the traffic rules that showed the fatal crash is the
reason for the negligence. In this case the duty of care has been breached.

b. Case 2:

According to case 2 the scenario again concerns the law relating to the tort of negligence.
There are potential actions, which arise between 2017 Volvo SUV and Elaine Herzberg.
Which concerned of the accident victim, and was hit by self-driving car, which was in
independent mode at the time of crash, were the individual who was walking outside of the
crosswalk with bicycle and later she was announced dead at a hospital. The vehicle operator
was inside the care car. The footage of the collision showed that Volvo SUV was roaming at
approximately at 40 miles per hr., and it did not appear to have slowed down as it tackled the
woman.

The first step is to establish a duty of care. Due to well establish the control of autonomous
vehicle shows the duty of care owed to those who might be, reasonably foreseeably, be harmed
by negligent exercise of that control. In this case scenario the Uber car is a self-driving car or
an independent car that is been operated without the driver and because of this accident the
company or the owner of the car also have some responsibility of duty of care. Accordingly, it

5  
 
is Clear that Rafaela Vasquez, 44 as the operator of the autonomous car owed deliberate Elaine
Herzberg 49, as the pedestrian that shows the duty of care.

The second step is to determine whether the duty owed to Dilbert was breached. In respect of
driving, standard of care required by the law is the standard of the competent and experienced
driver. As, the autonomous mode car includes control of speeds and includes brakes that
crashed and did not perform in a precise manner.

In the exercise of the Tort law, the fact states that although the car was travelling roughly at 40
miles an hour, that slowed down and it loomed the women. This is consistent with a competent
and experienced driver’s actions. At the time of testing of self-driving cars in California the
vehicles were grabbed running in the red lights that mainly leads to high profile argue and
which shows the cases of negligence. Although the car operator was inside the car was in
autonomous mode, as the manufacturer did not meet the average of a good driver. As declared
that the self-driving equipment is usually supposed to detect pedestrians, cyclists and also
prevent crashes. Manufacturer is responsible in this case because autonomous car was not able
reveal the women on the roadside.

One related case study to negligence and Duty of care is the case between Bob Vs. Laura
in this case there are possible actions that’s arises between two motor-vehicle accidents
between them. In which the deliberate is injured Bob’s van; Leonard has established a obsessed
fear of going out on the street and as a result of Laura’s crash; and Sherry grew a post-
traumatic stress disorder in consequence of Laura’s accident. It is established that control of a
motor vehicle that creates a duty of care owed to those who might, reasonably foreseeably, be
harmed by negligent exercise of that control. Leonard has developed a paranoid fear of going
out on the street as a result of Laura’s crash; and Sherry has developed a post-traumatic stress
disorder in consequence of Laura’s accident.

6  
 
3. Conclusions

To conclude this report, the law is defined as the rules that is conducted and recognized and
enforced by state that controls and regulate the behavior of people whereas business law is a
structured set of mainly dispositive legal types that regulate property relations of professional
transfer of assets that aimed at selling and purchasing exchange values of goods and as well
their utility. Civil law comes under this type of law, and it is primarily concerned with the
rights and duties of individuals towards each other. It includes the law of tort that is breach of
a private or civil right fitting of those individuals whereas crime is violation of the public right
and duties, which affect whole community.

In the present era, the vehicles are usually driven to be automatic to give human driver
peaceful driving. According to our given articles the first case includes law relating to the tort
of negligence. In this scenario the accident involves the tesla cars that were operating in
autopilot mode, and apple software engineer noticed that despite of the hands-on warning, the
driver hand was not sensed on the wheel for six seconds 150 meters, divider seen ahead no
action was taken by the driver that shows the absence of necessary training and licensing
practices, by the licensing body or manufacturer to drive, it is also automated and designed to
work independently to certain scope, the manufacturer takes a portion of duty of care.
California killed the driver as the car was in autopilot mode and as despite of system’s
warning that was given to the driver he took no action, as he was the operator of the car this
shows the negligence being done by the driver.

The second case shows the 2017 Volvo SUV and Elaine Herzberg. In this effect of the
accident victim was hit by self-driving car that was in autonomous mode at the time of crash
she was walking outside of the zebra crossing, who was travelling at crudely at 40 miles per
hr., and did not slowed down and it approached the woman. An autonomous car is been
operated without the driver and because of this the manufacturer or the owner of the car also
shares some portion of duty of care.

7  
 
 8  
 
  

References
 
 
Weissman, F. G., Pinder, J., & Berns, M. R. (2016). Pharmacy practice and Tort law.
(M. Weitz, & P. J. Boyle, Eds.) USA: Cenveo Pblisher Services.

Gulshan, S. S. (2006). Business Law (3rd ed.). New Delhi: Anurag Jain for Excel Books.

Tulsian, P. C. (2008). Business Law. (2nd, Ed.) New Delhi: Tata McGraw- Hill
Publishing company limited.

Trivun, V., Silajdzic, V., & Mahmutcehajic, F. (2018). Business Law. (S. D. Zeljko, Ed.,
& I. Randall, Trans.) Sarajevo: School of Economics and business University of
Sarajevo.

9