Management 320: Individual case study Assignment Natasha Hill 300188413 Executive Summary Recently‚ ACC has had to radically think about and change its current management practices following the worst privacy breach in New Zealand’s history. ACC was once successful at providing New Zealanders with personal accident and insurance cover‚ now the organisation is struggling to keep their reputation afloat and striving to gain the trust back from the public. Management issues‚ which have been
Premium New Zealand Board of directors Public sector
Office of the Ombudsman v. Uldarico P. Andutan (G.R. No. 164679‚ 27 July 2011) The Ombudsman argued – in both the present petition and in the petition it filed with the CA – that Andutan’s retirement from office does not render moot any administrative case‚ as long as he is charged with an offense he committed while in office. It is irrelevant‚ according to the Ombudsman‚ that Andutan had already resigned prior to the filing of the administrative case since the operative fact that determines its
Premium Termination of employment Resignation
Unit 320 – Support individuals to live at home 1.1 Living at home can benefit an individual as it helps to promote independence. Promoting independence is important as it means that they are more willing to help themselves if they are able to. Also if they are able to become more independent‚ they are more likely to become more confident‚ which means they may be able to do more things for themselves‚ therefore making them more independent‚ which therefore benefits the individual as they are in a
Premium Health care Person Feeling
former to incur the liabilty. The object of this assignment is to explain the principle of vicarious liability and show which instances it applies to. Reference will be made to decided cases and statutes. 2. Employer- Employee Relationship The employer- employee relationship is one of the most common occurrences of cases of vicarious liability. The most accepted reason for conferring liability to the employer is that by assigning a task to the employee‚ the employer creates a risk of harm and
Premium Tort law Vicarious liability Legal terms
Employers Liability and breach of statutory duty Employers liability have both a common law and statutory aspect. Common law = found in tort of negligence. Duties are only owed to employees. Not owed to IC and visitor’s (Occupiers liability) Common Law Basic duty owed at common law by an employer to an employee is founded on the tort of negligence. Authority derives from: Wilsons and Clyde Coal v English [1938] AC 57 Employers have the duty at common law to take reasonable
Premium Tort law Tort Law
Strict Liability “The law presumes that mens rea is always required in criminal offences‚ unless it is clear that Parliament intended an offence to be one of strict liability”. Discuss. (25marks) The general principle of criminal law is that the prosecution must establish the presence of both actus reus and mens rea. As the majority of criminal offences are created by statute‚ Parliament will usually indicate the kind of mens rea required
Premium Criminal law
Estimated liabilities are a known obligation that is of an uncertain amount but that can be reasonable estimated. Common examples are employee benefits such as pensions‚ heath care and vacation pay‚ and warranties offered by a seller (Fundamental Accounting Principles‚ Chapter 11‚ Pg 437). When a firm sells products or renders services with a warranty‚ the firms has an obligation towards the customer when the warranty is honored. The warranty liability is an estimate of the obligations. Hence‚ a
Premium Estimation Approximation Holiday
DEFENITION: STRICT LIABILITY RYLANDS V FLETCHER CASE i. FACTS ii. DIAGRAMATICAL REPRESENTATION iii. JUDGEMENT iv. EFFECTS OF THE CASE v. EFFECTS OF THE CASE IN INDIA vi. CONCLUSION vii. ESSENTIALS EXCEPTIONS BIBLIOGRAPHY STRICT LIABILITY • A person may be liable for some harm even though he is not negligent in causing the same or does not intentionally cause it or is careful or has taken steps to prevent the same. • e.g.‚ The defendant is liable to the neighbor
Premium Tort Legal terms Law
Journal of International Management 8 (2002) 223 – 240 Liability of foreignness to competitive advantage: How multinational enterprises cope with the international business environment Deepak Sethi*‚ Stephen Guisinger 1 University of Texas at Dallas‚ P.O. Box 830688‚ Richardson‚ TX 75083-0688‚ USA Abstract An expanded and holistic conceptualization of the liability of foreignness (LOF) is presented that goes beyond the traditional foreign subsidiary – local firm dyad in the host country.
Premium Strategic management Multinational corporation
OCCUPIERS LIABILITY The occupancy of premises is affected by two statues: 1) The occupier’s liability act 1957. Under this act there is a duty to keep safe and lawful visitors to the premises 2) The occupier’s liability act 1984. Where an occupier may owe a duty to protect trespassers onto the premises. LAWFUL VISITORS A lawful visitor has permission to enter premises. This can be expressed permission of implied. There are four situations covering implied permissions: 1) If the occupier
Premium Management Contract Risk