Transportation Law - Commercial Law Review Exam

P cannot sue the MRT for contractual breach because she had no intention to board an MRT train coach when the incident occurred. The fact that she had a ticket for her ride home and was within the MRT premises is irrelevant in this case. The incident took place at the MRT station, not inside the train coach, so it does not fall under the MRT's duty of care towards passengers. Therefore, P does not have grounds to sue the MRT for contractual breach.

The doctrine of limited liability allows a shipowner to limit their liability to the value of the ship and its freight after a maritime accident. However, in order for the doctrine to apply, the shipowner must have either incurred a total loss or abandoned the ship. In this case, X Shipping did not incur a total loss nor did they abandon the ship. Therefore, they cannot invoke the doctrine of limited liability and are not correct in their defense against the cargo owners' suit.

The correct answer is "Not liable, because it is not a common carrier and the parties to a contract, as such, may enter into a stipulation exempting the owner from liability for the negligence of its agents." The explanation for this is that the carrier in this case, X Shipping Lines, is not considered a common carrier. As a result, they are not subject to the same level of liability as common carriers. Additionally, the owner and shipper agreed on a stipulation that exempted the owner from liability for the negligence of its agents. This stipulation is valid and enforceable under the contract between the parties. Therefore, the carrier is not liable for the shortages in the delivered cargo.