本文主要講的是保險合同法的分析說明，考慮第一個問題稍微不同的變體。勞合社的承保人可能不太可能避免船體和機械保險合同，因為本寧沒有披露詹姆斯先生過去被監禁的情況。湯姆知道了過去的監禁，他聯繫了斯蒂芬·史密斯以獲得本寧的案子。要理解為什麼會出現這種情況，請考慮以下幾點。現在，班寧的理由是，它並非有意欺騙保險公司。據了解，Benning ‘s確實已經回答了保險機構要求的所有問題。本篇論文代寫行情文章由澳洲論文人EducationRen教育網整理，供大家參考閱讀。
Consider a slightly different variation of the first question. Lloyd’s Underwriters might be unlikely in avoiding the hull and machinery insurance contract based on non-disclosure of Mr. James past imprisonment by Benning. The past imprisonment was known by Tom who contacted Stephen Smith to secure the instance for Benning’s. To understand why this is the case, consider the following. Now the case for Benning’s is that it did not intentionally want to defraud the insurance agency. It is understood that Benning’s has indeed answered all the questions required by the insurance agency.
The responsibility for all these data does not only lie with the insurance seeker, it should also lie with the insurer. The insurer responsibility for asking questions is defined in Section 21 A of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984(Cth). According to this, it is important that the insurer ask the right questions. In addition, there might be causes of innocent non-disclosure and not fraudulent non-disclosure. Benning’s has not acted fraudulently by non-disclosure of details. It has innocently failed to disclose because they were not aware of the data at all. On the other hand, Tom has a situation of fraudulent non-disclosure because he knew a material fact that would have an imposition on the case and yet did not disclose. He knew the situation of Mr. James and has not presented this data even though it was on his connections that insurance was sought by Benning’s from Mr. Stephen of Lloyd’s Underwriters. Therefore, it could be said that the claim might have to be honoured.
In the case of a beneficial owner, one has to address the action in rem for meeting the plaintiff claims (Collins, 1985). A challenge lies for the plaintiff here too, as the plaintiff has to prove that the person claimed as defendant is indeed the beneficial owner at this point. An action in rem considered by the procedural theory can hence be considered as an action personam or action in rem by personification theory. It is modified slightly for serving the actual defendant. When an action in procedural principle is made, no further action in the case of personification is necessary.
澳洲論文人EducationRen教育網在同行業的代寫服務機構中以適中的價格，優質的服務，贏得了廣大客戶群體的稱讚，並因此擁有了一大批新老客戶。如果需要澳洲代寫可點擊上方欄目列表詢問客服人員，我們將會耐心，熱情的為您解答，給您建議。