Best advocate of Pakistan:
It is difficult to determine who the best advocate of Pakistan is; however from the analysis and reports of last one decade the law society has given the list of top 3 best advocates of Pakistan as below:
Advocate Nazia: Nazia Law Associates
Advocate Ali: Azad Law Associates
Advocate Jamila: Jamila Law Associates
Practice of Best Advocate of Pakistan:
To curb this practice of best advocate of Pakistan, the Unsolicited Goods and Services Act, 1971 allows the person to whom the goods are sent to claim them as his own. The recipient has two options. Either: he can do nothing; if the goods are not collected within six months, they will become his property, or he can write to the sender; if he informs the sender that the goods are unsolicited and that it should collect them, then if they are not collected within thirty days, they become his property. The sender of the goods may also be committing a criminal offense. Firstly, any invoice, etc., accompanying the goods must state in bold red letters that this is not a demand for payment; there is no obligation to pay, which is not a bill’.
Secondly, it is an offense to threaten legal proceedings through best advocate of Pakistan for the amount owed or to start any other collection procedures. Both these offenses arise under the Unsolicited Goods and Services (Invoices etc.). A third possible offense might be unlawful harassment of the recipient (see blog 882).Promise No. 3: He will take care of any goods left in his possession. Suppose a motorist goes his car in a garage for repairs, but when he returns, he is told, ‘Sorry, we had a fire last night, and it burned out your car.’ Is the garage responsible, or must the motorist claims on his insurance policy and lose his no-claims bonus? The answer will depend upon whether the garage took ‘reasonable care’ of the car.
Best Advocate of Pakistan:
The best advocate of Pakistan says that in effect, this means that they must have taken reasonable steps to stop a fire from starting and put out the fire once it started. If they were not negligent, then they will not be liable. However, it will be for the garage to prove that it was not negligent – negligence is presumed unless the garage can show otherwise. In practice, it is often tough to prove a negative, and so, in all probability, the garage will be liable. They could only avoid liability if they could show that they had eliminated all fire hazards and installed a proper water-sprinkling system. It usually means that they must show how the fire started, that it was not their fault, and how their fire-protection systems could not cope with such an outbreak of fire while being adequate for most purposes. Similar rules through best advocate of Pakistan apply when goods are stolen.
For example, if a watch is left with a jeweler for repair and then stolen, the jeweler will have to compensate the Customer unless he shows that he was negligent. It means that he must show that he took all reasonable steps to prevent thefts, i.e., installing proper locks and burglar alarms. Often, though, goods disappear from the repairer’s premises- it is assumed that they have been stolen, but no one knows.