LAW

Question: LLB: Company Law I Coursework

[Institute's Name]Question: LLB: Company Law I Coursework

Introduction

Paying utmost homage to the civilization that mankind of current era has attained, it is highly imperative that this homage takes the shape of practical manifestation, and the practical manifestation of the previously stated connotation rests in the adherence and conformance to the lawfulness and legality penned by the law enforcing entities. However, numerous instances occur, in which a deliberate or inadvertent nonconformance to the laws takes place, which may be someone else's fault, but the pertinent person at that position (currently) is coerced to face the unseen consequences. Therefore, it is highly imperative that such instances, are seen, measured and judged in the right context to hold and set culpable the responsible person.

Scenario 1

The entire scenario of this coursework pertains to a parent company which claims to specialize in offering the risky sports to tourists and its other regular customers. This company, known as Dangerous Sports Plc (DSP), renders the relative administrative assistance to the entire group and relishes maximum chunk of the profits that is acquired by its subsidiaries. With, David Matthews as the managing director, things are not quite working out for him, as well as his company. In the given scenario, Matthews articulates or rather narrates an accident that has out this company at a difficult state. The narration rendered by Matthews brings the naïve mind to the comprehensive overview of the situation, as a set of tourists, comprising of six people, had deplorably met a terrible accident, caused by a faulty bungee rope.

Interestingly, the accident did not take place at the vicinity under the direct control of DSP, instead, it took place at BBL. Although, the tourists are continuing with a legal action against DSP, yet Mathews is eloquently setting the temporary staff at BBL for this incident, as it was their prime responsibility to have checked and verified the condition of the bungee rope, before utilizing it for the sporting purposes of the tourists. Mathews further states that warning or suggestions had been rendered from the management of DSP to BBL in the past, yet the operations at BBL were executed rather independently; hence, the rationale behind proceeding with legal actions against DSP does not find it authenticated basis, in views of Mathews.

Underlying Connotations Attributed To This Case

For furnishing astute and relevant advice to David Mathews, it is rather extremely essential that the apparent and underlying connotations that are endured by this given case/ scenario are completely understood and inferred, in the first lace. Therefore, it becomes substantial to pen down the basic prominent and salient features of this case. To start off with, DSL is primarily responsible for rendering the administrative assistance to its subsidiaries and other affiliated companies, but the core operations and the activities, which are taking place at the subsidiaries and other associated companies, are managed by their own designated management.

Moreover, the incident took place because of the negligence and carelessness of the staff at ...