Contoh Jawapan Soalan Problem LAW299 PDF

Preview

Summary

NASHWA ZEEHAN BINTI MOHAMMAD ISKANDARJBA1114A2018210708QUESTION 1a) The legal issues is Whether Leslie is bound to pay when he was informed about the changes of price? Whether the contract is already binding between Leslie and the cashier? Whether Leslie can withdraw his offer?There are few common e...

Description

NASHWA ZEEHAN BINTI MOHAMMAD ISKANDAR JBA1114A 201

0708

QUESTION 1

a) The legal issues is Whether Leslie is bound to pay when he was informed about the changes of price? Whether the contract is already binding between Leslie and the cashier? Whether Leslie can withdraw his offer? There are few common examples of Invitation to Treat. One of them is display of goods in a Self-service shop. The act of the seller displaying the goods with the price tags, in a self-service shop is only an invitation to treat. The customer would make the offer when he selected the desired goods and bring them to the counter for payment. When the customer brings the goods to the counter for payment, at that point of the time the customer is actually making an offer to buy according to the price that was tagged on the goods. The customer or the buyer is the offeror. The seller or the cashier is the offeree. They will be at the counter to make the acceptance by accepting the money of the customer in agreement to sell the goods to the buyer. Due to this principle, even though the goods displayed been tagged or marked at a certain price, the seller is not bound to sell that particular price to the customer. The price is subject to changes due to the rule that it is only an invitation to treat. Sometimes, the seller is not bound to sell it at all to the customer. It is up to the seller whether to accept or not the offer made by the customer. If the seller accepted the offer of the customer, then only the contract is binding. On the other hand, so long as the seller has not made any acceptance to the customer’s offer, the customer is not bound to the contract yet. The customer can withdraw his offer at any time before the seller makes his acceptance. Therefore, the customer is not bound to pay if he withdrew his offer right after he been informed about the difference or change of the price by the cashier or the seller. However, the withdrawal of the offer should be done before the cashier make the acceptance. Example, before the payment is accepted. Based on the case of PHARMACEUTICAL SOCIETY OF GREAT BRITAIN v BOOTS CASH CHEMIST LTD (1953) , the issue in this case is whether the display of goods with the price tags in a self-service shop is

an offer or an invitation to treat. The held for this case is the display of goods was only an invitation to treat. An offer is made when the customer placed the articles into the basket and brings them to the counter for payment. Acceptance would only be made when the cashier or the shop owner accepted the payment made by the customer. So long as the cashier did not accept the payment, there is no contract yet. In the case of FISHER v BELL (1960) , the issue for this case is whether the display of the knife constituted an offer for sale (in which case the defendant was guilty) or an invitation to treat (in which case he was not). The held for this case is display of several kinds of flick-knives in a glass shop window is not an offer but only an invitation to the customer to make an offer to buy. Whether the offer is to be accepted or not, it depends on the discretion of the shop owner. In Leslie and the cashier situation, there is no acceptance in terms of payment so the contract is not binding between Leslie and the cashier. Leslie can withdraw his offer at any time before the cashier make the acceptance. Leslie also not bound to pay for the tissues because he withdrew the offer right after he was informed about the changes of the price by the cashier. So, the withdrawal of the offer can be done before the cashier make acceptance which is the payment. As a conclusion, displaying the goods with the price tags, in a self-service shop is only an invitation to treat. The customer will make the offer when they selected the desired goods and bring them to the counter for payment. Even though the goods displayed been tagged or marked at a certain price, the seller is not bound to sell that particular price to the customer. The price is subject to changes due to the rule that it is only an invitation to treat. As long as the seller has not made any acceptance to the customer’s offer, the customer is not bound to the contract. The customer is not bound to pay if he withdrew his offer right after he been informed about the difference or change of the price by the cashier.

b) The legal issues are whether Dahlia must pay RM100 to Jay? Whether there is contract binding between Jay and Dahlia? Whether Jay can sue Dahlia for the money? Whether there is valid consideration between Jay and Dahlia? There are 3 categories of consideration. One of it is Past Consideration (Past Act in return to a promise). Past consideration is a consideration which has been done or completed before the promise is made. In this situation, one promise is made subsequent to and in return for an act that has already been performed before the promise is made. The promise is made after such past consideration or past act. The past act is a valid consideration for the promise made, provided such past act or past consideration is done upon the request of the promisor. Under section 2 (d), the phrase “has done or abstained from doing” suggest that an act done prior to the promise, would be sufficient to constitute a valid consideration, even though it is clearly past, provided that it is done “at the desire of the promisor”. In the case of LAMPLEIGH v BRATHWAIT (1615), Brathwait was sentenced to death for murder. Brathwait requested Lampleigh to do all he can to get a pardon for him from the King in London. Lampleigh exerted himself running up and down between London and New Market at his own expenses and finally got a pardon for Brathwait. Brathwait promised Lampleigh 100 pound for that, but subsequently failed to pay. Lampleigh sued Brathwait. Brathwait argued that there was no consideration from Lampleigh when Brathwait mase the promise to pay 100 pounds. The held for this case is there was a past consideration from Lampleigh. Lampleigh was entitled to the 100 pounds as his service was done at the previous request of Brathwait. The previous request and the subsequent promise were to be treated as part of the same transaction. Therefore, there was contract between them. Brathwait was bound to pay Lampleigh. Based on the case of KEPONG PROSPECTING LTD v A.E. SCHMIDT (1968). Schmidt a consulting engineer had assisted Mr X in obtaining a prospecting permit for mining iron ore in the state of Johore. Schmidt also helped in the formation of a company. Kepong Prospecting Ltd. Schmidt was appointed as the managing director of the company. After the company was formed, a contract was entered into between Schmidt and the Company, under which the company promised to pay Schmidt 1% of the value of all ore sold from the mining land. This promise was “in consideration of the services given by Schmidt for and on behalf of the company before its formation, after incorporation and for future services”. However, the company later failed to pay

to Schmidt. Schmidt claimed on the amount promised. The issue was whether there was a valid consideration from Schmidt for the promise of the company. The held for this case is the services given by Schmidt before the promise was made were sufficient to constitute a valid consideration even though those services were clearly past. In Jay and Dahlia situation, there is past consideration available in the agreement so the agreement is binding. Dahlia must pay RM100 to Jay because the promise is made subsequent to and in return for an act that has already been performed by Jay when he was helping Dahlia. The contract between them is binding when the promise is made after the past consideration. There is past consideration for Jay. The help towards Dahlia given by Jay before the promise were sufficient to constitute a valid consideration even though those help were past. Jay can sue Dahlia for not paying RM100 after she make the promise to pay Jay that amount for helping her. As a conclusion, Past consideration is a consideration which has been done or completed before the promise is made. One promise is made subsequent to and in return for an act that has already been performed before the promise is made. The past act is a valid consideration for the promise made. Past consideration is done upon the request of the promisor. An act done prior to the promise, would be sufficient to constitute a valid consideration, even though it is clearly past.

QUESTION 3

a) The legal issues is whether Shivani has the right to assign the couch to her neighbour? Whether Shivani must pay RM350 for stamp duty and registration? Whether Shivani can assign the couch without the owner consent?

The Hire Purchase Act 1967, provides several provisions concerning the rights and the duties of hirers under hire-purchase agreements. One of it is Right to Assign Hirer’s under Hire-Purchase Agreement. Initially, the hirer is not the owner of the goods. Therefore, he has no right to assign any right over the goods to another person. However, the hirer may assign his right, tittle and interest under a hire-purchase agreement to another person (assignee) with the consent of the owner. This was under section 12 (1). If the owner is unreasonably withhold the consent, then the hirer may assign his right, title and interest without the consent of the owner from section 12 (1). However, the hirer must first apply to the high court for an order declaring that the consent of the owner has unreasonably been withheld under the section 12(3). “Consent is unreasonably withheld” means that the owner fails or refuses to give his consent without sufficient cause or reason. The second one is if the owner requires any payment or consideration for his consent to such an assignment under the section 12 (2). The third one is when the High Court is satisfied to declare that the owner has unreasonably withhold his consent, upon the application by the hirer from section 12 (3). And the last one is when the owner requires other or additional guarantors to guarantee the assignee’s obligation whereas the same guarantors who have guaranteed the hirer’s obligation have agreed to guarantee the assignee’s obligation under the assignment or the assignee has furnished the same number of guarantors to guarantee his obligation under the assignment as was furnished by the hirer to guarantee his obligation under the hire-purchase agreement referring to section 12 (5). On the other hand, that, in granting the consent to the assignment, the owner may stipulate that all defaults incurred by the hirer under the hire-purchase agreement shall be made good on the section 12(5). Owner may also require the hirer and the assignee from section 12(4) which is the first one is to execute

and deliver to the owner an assignment in a form approved by the owner, whereby the assignee agrees to be personally liable to pay the instalments remaining unpaid, they also need to perform and observe all other stipulations and conditions of the hire–purchase agreement during the residue of the term and to indemnify the hirer in respect of those liabilities. The second one is to pay the reasonable costs incurred by the owner in stamping or registering the assignment agreement. In this situation, Shivani has the right to assign the couch to her neighbour because they already have the consent of the owner about Shivani decision to assign the couch. It is stated in section 12 (4) that the hirer may assign her right, title and interest under a hire-purchase agreement to another person with the consent of the owner. So Shivani cannot and has no right to assign the couch to her neighbour with the consent from the owner. Shivani which is the hirer and her neighbour which is the assignee are the one who should pay the stamp duty and the registration of the hire-purchase agreement. It was stated in section 12 (4) where the hirer and the assignee need to pay the reasonable costs incurred by the owner in stamping or registering the assignment agreement. As a conclusion, the hirer is not the owner of the goods so he has no right to assign any right over the goods to another person but the hirer may assign his right, tittle and interest under a hire-purchase agreement to another person (assignee) with the consent of the owner. The Owner may also require the hirer and the assignee to execute and deliver to the owner an assignment in a form approved by the owner and also to pay the reasonable costs incurred by the owner in stamping or registering the assignment agreement.

b) The legal issues are Whether the agreement can be hand-written in the Chinese language using a green coloured pen? Whether the hire-purchase agreement is valid? According to the law, in order to form a valid and binding hire-purchase agreement, several formalities have to be observed by the parties. One of it is the agreement must be in writing. The hire purchase agreement must be in writing under section 4A (1). Otherwise, the agreement shall be void. This was from section 4A (2). Next one is the owner who does not comply this formality shall be guilty for an offence under the HPA 1967 based on section 4A (3). And there will be penalty which is under section 46 (1). Not only that, it is also stated that, beside that signature, the compulsory contents set out below must be easily legible and where the applicable, be of a colour which us readily distinguishable from the background screen where the information will be stated. So, the agreement will be clearer and easy to read and identify Other than that, inserted in handwriting, be equal prominence, except that heading, trade names and names of parties to the agreement may be afforded more prominence whether by capital letters, underlining, larger or bold print. Next is hire-purchase agreement must be in the national language or English language based on section 4A (1A). Then, any hire-purchase agreement that do not comply with subsection (1) an (1A) shall be void. Most importantly. Any oral agreement is not valid in the hire-purchase agreement. Based on this situation, Wong who entered hire-purchase agreement by using hand-written in the Chinese language using a green coloured pen are following the formalities of hire purchase agreement. It is because the agreement is hand-written as one of the formalities stated that a hire-purchase agreement must be in writing and not oral agreement. But Chinese language is not following the formalities. Chinese language is actually one of the national languages but only in the country of China. If the agreement was made in China, so the agreement is binding but if it was made in somewhere else for example Malaysia, the contract will be void. They can use the green coloured pen as long as it was different from the colour of the background. So, the hire purchase agreement of Wong with EasyPay Finance Bhd for the purchase of a

lawnmower is a void agreement due to the agreement are using Chinese language in the agreement. As the conclusion, in order to form a valid and binding hire-purchase agreement is they need to observed the formalities of hire-purchase agreement. Which is the agreement must be in writing and not in oral-agreement. Otherwise, the agreement will be void. Not only that, the language must be in national language.

c) The legal issues are whether the owner can repossess the goods from Jebat’s wife? Whether default to pay two successive instalments is valid for deceased hirer? Whether the owner shall not repossess the goods from deceased hirer? The Hire Purchase Act 1967 provides the procedures for repossession. These procedures may be divided into 3 stages which is before, during and after repossession. For the before repossession, it has when the owner can repossess under section 16 (1). The owner may repossess the goods from the hirer only if the hirer defaulted to pay 2 successive instalments and the total payment of instalments paid by the hirer amounts to not more than 75% of the total cash price of the goods as in the hire-purchase agreement. If the total payment of instalment is more than 75%, the owner may not repossess unless he has obtained an order of the court from section 16 (1A). As for the deceased hirer, the owner shall not repossess the goods unless there is a default to pay 4 successive instalments. It stated under section 16 (1C). In this situation, the Easypay Finance Sdn Bhd cannot served on Jebat’s wife a notice to repossesses the lorry because the lorry default of two successive instalments. This is due to Jebat who is hirer of the lorry is passed away and according to the law, for a deceased hirer, the owner shall not repossess the

goods unless there is a default pay 4 successive instalments. This was under section 16(1C). Not only that, default to pay two successive instalments is not valid for deceased hirer because it only valid for alive hirer. As the conclusion, the owner may re repossess the goods from the hirer only if the hirer defaulted to pay 2 successive instalments. But this is for the alive hirer. As for the deceased hirer, the owner shall not repossess the goods unless there is a default to pay 4 successive instalments. The repossess of goods are different for the alive hirer and the deceased hirer....