so r u putting the blame on GOD n offence christian community???Originally posted by fudgester:One question: who is in charge of the weather that broke that tree branch?
Smart sia you guys.... blaming an Act of God on NParks....
I said that You should prove that there was wilful neglect on the part of NParks if you want to accuse them of negligence.Originally posted by HyperFocal:... Like I said earlier; I bet you'd be singing a different tune if it had struck an MP's car...
.. and of course, it is still Act of God in the eyes of THEIR Law...
... I don't have to do the proving, the current windy stormy weather system will do that...Originally posted by fudgester:I said that You should prove that there was wilful neglect on the part of NParks if you want to accuse them of negligence.
You chose to shrug that aside and put forth a hypothetical scenario based on your feelings in place of a rebuttal.
I rest my case.
Gosh... you really don't know the legal meaning of 'Acts of God', do you?Originally posted by 798:so r u putting the blame on GOD n offence christian community???
Why would you think I'm going to complain about a tree branch dropping on an MP's car?Originally posted by HyperFocal:... then, lets wait for that to happen... and perhaps even more...
That's a refreshing point of view. How many of you ppl complaining now have written in letters to thank Nparks for the shade and scenery on good days?Originally posted by ShrodingersCat:when stormy weather want Nparks to apologise....
then when very hot sunny weather which occurs 75% of the time
how you intend to thank Nparks lehhhhhh
for the trees nice shade and growth worrrr
anyway Act of God means... suay loh - why so many cars pass under in storm. then suay suay hit this one...
It's mother natureOriginally posted by qpicanto:Someone could have been killed, as usual blames on monsoon and strong wind. Come on , monsoon season dont happpen this year or last, and haven't they heard of climate change ?
If they cannot manage so many trees, chop them off for goodness sake before lives are lost .
Where is their graciousness ?
There there..... I'm sure CJS will take up your case and bring matters to the UN....Originally posted by Fatum:My Hamster died ! ....
it's all the goverment's fault ! .....
PAP ! xia tai ! .. PAP ! xia tai ! .... give me a new hammie ! ...
I'll go on a hunger strike if there's no hammie by the weekend ! ....Originally posted by hloc:There there..... I'm sure CJS will take up your case and bring matters to the UN....
ahahahahahahahahahahaOriginally posted by Fatum:I'll go on a hunger strike if there's no hammie by the weekend ! ....
one cannot dispute the importance of trees but are they placed at the right location and not causing more harm than good. Why cant we plant shrub along the expressways like those along airports boulevard?Originally posted by newcomer:these are freak accidents man. what can u do about it? chop em all up? best way to deal with it is trim the branches.
trees and its leaves are useful and important to a clean environment. would u believe our air would have been much much more polluted if there weren't any trees? they act like filters and collect the dust on their leaves and they cleanse our air. and do u know that 1 tree is equivalent to 10 huge aircons? they're a function of weather mind you.
juz becuz one tree fell and destroyed a $1000 windshield ppl start wanting to take down trees. death/injury caused by falling trees/branches are not quite common, driving is.
Thats what most of us had been saying..... Show prove that Npark known about that danger of the tree branch and did nothing, then we could agree that Npark is at faultOriginally posted by hisoka:i think the only question to ask is if regular maintainence and checks were really done. as in there really was unreasonable neglect on Npark's part........
fair enough the storm is mother nature But the tree is artificially planted.Originally posted by sbst275:It's mother nature
anyway no insurance covers you from mother nature
and the branch fell off because the TREE was artificially planted?Originally posted by qpicanto:fair enough the storm is mother nature But the tree is artificially planted.
Originally posted by maurizio13:and too many kids pretending to be adults.
The problem here is, there are too many kids and adults who have limited knowledge that behave like kids.
[b]Act of God aka Force Majeure
Force majeure (French for "greater force" ) is a common clause in contracts which essentially frees both parties from liability or obligation when an extraordinary event or circumstance beyond the control of the parties, such as war, strike, riot, crime, act of nature (e.g., flooding, earthquake, volcano) , prevents one or both parties from fulfilling their obligations under the contract. However, force majeure is not intended to excuse negligence or other malfeasance of a party, as where non-performance is caused by the usual and natural consequences of external forces (e.g., predicted rain stops an outdoor event), or where the intervening circumstances are specifically contemplated.
Ermmm.....this is not the courts, I don't have the privilege of cross examining anybody and there are no physical evidence. We are only basing arguments on circumstantial. Rhetorics with substantiated links and case files??? Seems like you are more likely the person with the rhetorics, you make statements with no explanation and no supporting links or sources for your arguments.Originally posted by deathbait:and too many kids pretending to be adults.
prove negligence and we'll entertain your accusations. I recall something about innocent until proven guilty. So far all you've come up with is rhetorics.
What, because the accused here happens to represent someone you don't like, you can change the rules?
Originally posted by Gazelle:The S$60,000 cap is the maximum amount you can enjoy the 1% increase in CPF rate. ie. if you have $120,000 in your CPF, only $60,000 will enjoy the 1%.
If you refer back to CPF statistic on page 84, total number of people will $60,000 and above is 937,596, which mean, S$56,225,760,000 of CPF from this group will benefit from the 1% hike, which will cost the government $562,225,760
As for those below $60,000 group their total CPF value is S$12,015,540,000, of which 100% will benefit from the 1% interest hike and will cost the government = $120,014,540.
Total Cost : $562,225,820 + $120,014,540 = $682,713,040
Go easy on the arse, because I just had diarrhea this morning...
I have stated my case, you are entitled to your own opinion.
Well, I admit I was wrong on my calculation, but I based my understanding that this measure was to help the low and middle class Singaporeans as mentioned by him in his speech. How come it includes the rich now?
Huh?Originally posted by phil30k:Dear Maurizio
Thank you for putting up that link. It's very informative.
The defendent had argued that the driver, by driving over the speed limit, had been negligent. So far so good. Then they said that if the car had not been speeding, or had been driven slower, it would not have arrived at that exact spot at that time. Again so far so good.
Then they said that by neglecting to follow speed limits, the driver arrived at that exact spot at that exact time, thus being right under the falling tree and thereby contributing to the damage.
The court decided that argument was not valid.
I don't see what this has to do with this thread.
Originally posted by maurizio13:Just as an example of how easy it is to manipulate "official" documents, let's have a full review of this case:
Go read the case again slowly.
He sued for damages, the defendant defence was plaintiff exceeded speed limit. But the facts of the case is, the tree fell, hit the car and the plaintiff was awarded damages (Plaintiff's recovery is sustained).
[b]Berry v. Sugar Notch Borough
Brief Fact Summary
Plaintiff was running his car on borough street in a violent wind storm. As he passed under a tree, it was blown down crushing the roof of his car and causing him serious injury. Plaintiff was running his car in excess of the speed limit as permitted by a borough ordinance.
Rule of Law and Holding
Plaintiff's rate of speed did not cause or contribute to the harm that he suffered. His actions did not increase the foreseeable likelihood that a tree would fall on his car. It cannot be said that plaintiff was contributorily negligent. Thus, Plaintiff's recovery is sustained.