Earlier today, M, the treasurer at our society received an email, apparently from B, the former president of the society. Look at the header in graphic 1 - it shows B's name and B's usual email address. In the email, B asked M to initiate payment of $2950 to a vendor today.
M followed correct procedure and hit 'reply', asking B for more details. However, she did not see at the time (because many email apps don't show all the details) that her message was not going to B's usual email address, but instead to 'firstname.lastname@example.org' - a scammer.
The scammer then replied to M, again using B's name and usual email address, telling her to make payment for a fake event.
Fortunately, M then emailed the current president and asked for approval, because (unknown to the scammer), B is no longer the president of the society. He checked with the real B, and we quickly established that this was a scam. That was a close call: if B was still the president, "…
Mr Chapelton went to a beach run by Barry UDC. See saw deckchairs. A notice next to them said,
"Barry Urban District Council. Cold Knap. Hire of chairs 2d. per session of 3 hours ... tickets should be obtained from attendants."
He got two chairs from an attendant, paid the money and got two tickets. He put them in his pocket. On the ticket was written,
"Available for three hours. Time expires where indicated by cut-off and should be retained and shown on request. The council will not be liable for any accident or damage arising from the hire of the chair."
When he sat on the chair it gave way and he was injured. Would the exemption clause work?
The Court of Appeal held that Barry UDC made an offer when the chairs were on display, Mr Chapelton accepted when he picked up the chairs from the defendant, and the ticket was merely a receipt of the contract, so the exclusion clause could not be incorporated as a term, because it was too late.
He led the team that turned mudflats into a metropolis, but could one graphic describe the impact that the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew had on Singapore? This one from the Economist does a pretty good job of representing it.
The underlying philosophy of the Visual Law School site is that complex issues and concepts (such as the law and legal principles) can be made more understandable by showing them in a visual or graphical format. This infographic will not replace the reams of text and hours of eulogies that will mark the life and impact the Mr Lee had on our country. But it is a relatively fair and balanced window into the story that helps to put that impact into a global and historical perspective. Read the full article at The Economist
Rest in Peace, Mr Lee, we will always be grateful for what you did.