FINAL ASSINGMENT 083 PDF

Preview

Summary

MUHAMMAD ALIF IQBAL BIN AZIZ 2020340715 UQUESTION 1a) There is no intention to create legal relation in a family agreements on the case of Balfour v [1919] 2 KB 571 defendant was employed in Ceylon and he was a civil servant defendant and his wife head back to England,his wife stayed in England beca...

Description

MUHAMMAD ALIF IQBAL BIN AZIZ 2020340715 U13 QUESTION 1 a)

There is no intention to create legal relation in a family agreements.Based on the case of Balfour v.Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571.The defendant was employed in Ceylon and he was a civil servant.The defendant and his wife head back to England.However,his wife stayed in England because of a doctor recommendation and the husband promised her 30 euro a month as maintenance before heading back to Ceylon.Later the marriage come to an end after the husband wrote her that separation would be better for them.The wife sued the husband for the monthly 30 euro that was promised by the husband.It was held that there was no agreement between them because the agreement was not intended to be legally binding.However,in the case of Merrir v.Merrit [1970] 2 ALL ER760,The husband made a promised to pay certain expenses but the agreement was made when they became saparated.The husband did not do it and claim that the agreement did not have legal relations.It was held that the agreement to be enforceable because it was made when they separated with each other.There also evidence that they not staying together anymore and that rebutted the presumption of no legal intent.In conclusion,family agreement is not legally binding and can not be enforced.

B )Whether the deed of gift of a landed property to Jebat was valid as there was undue influence. Under section 10(1) of the contracts act 1950 stated that all agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of parties competent to contract,for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object,and are not hereby expressly declared to be void.Section 13 of the contract act 1950 also stated that consent is when two or more persons are sadi to consent when they agree upon the same thing in the same sense.Section 14 if the contracts act 1960 provides that consent is said to be free when it is not caused by coercion,undue influence,fraud,mispresentation and mistake.Section 16(1) of the contracts act 1950 defines undue influence as a contract is said to be induced by undue influence where the relations subsisting between the parties are such that one of the parties is in a position to dominate the will of the other and uses that position to an unfair advantage over the other.Under section 20 of the contract act 1950 ,When consent to an agreement is caused by undue influence,the agreement is a contract voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused. Any such contract may be set aside either absolutely or, if the party who was entitled to avoid it has received any benefit thereunder, upon such terms and conditions as to the court may seem just.This will make the contract voidable at the option of the party under the section 20.Based on the case of Inche Noriah v Shaik Allie bin Omar [1929] AC 127.An old and illiterate malay woman executed a deed of gift of a landed property to her nephew.The nephew which is the reposdent managed her affair.The court found that the nephew was relied by the old frail woman for all her matters and she also cannot leave her home.The old woman doesnt realize the worth of her properties and no knowledge of her own matters.It was held that the old woman relationship with her nephew was enough to raise presumption of the influence over the old woman which is the appelant.The presumption was not rebutted and the gift should be cancelled.

In this case,there was not contract between Maryam and her nephew,Jebat as there was no free consent as section 10(1) of the contract act 1950.The both parties also did not agree upon the same thing in the same sense and this is based on the section 13 of the contract act 1950.Section 14 of the contract act 1950 provides that it is consent is said to be free when it is not caused by coercion,under influence,fraud,misrepresentation and mistake.In this case it was undue influence.Section 16 of the contact act 1950 defined undue influence and it is in line with this case where Jebat is in a position where he dominate Maryam to execute a deed of gift of a landed property in his favour because she is an old and illiterate.Maryam also depended on Jebat to handle and manage all her affairs. In conclusion,Jebat dominated Maryam to execute the deed of gift of landed property to him because of undue influence.The contract is voidable as there is no free consent.

QUESTION 2 a)

There are two elements that must be establish at that same time for a crime to take place.One must commited actus reus which is a guilty act and along with mens rea which is a guilty mind.This is in line with section 322 of the penal code where it was needed by the persecution to prove not only the offender has caused hurt and also guilty mind .

Actus reus doesnt necessarily refers to guilty act but also an omission.This can be seen on the section 32 of the penal code stated that “words which refer to acts done extend also to illegal omissions”.Section 3 of the penal code stated that “the word ‘illegal’ or ‘lawful’ is applicable to everything which is an offence,or which is prohibited by law,or which furnishes ground for a civil action.And in respect of the word ‘illegal’,a person is said to be “legally bound to do”whatever it is illegal for him to omit.Omission is a failure to do an obligation where it was imposed by the law and it is illegal for one to neglect it.Based on the case of Rahanny Rojela v.Public prosecutor [2016] 1 LNS 1164,the accused was charged under 302 of the penal code for the murder of teto chang.The accused was found guility because elements of the crime was proven.The actus reus was proven based on the fact that the prosecution witness witnessed that the accused sitting on top of the deceased and stabbed him a few times in the chest. Means rea means guilty mind and mentions the mental element necessary for a certain crime.Mens rea will be required if the offence contains words like “intention”,”knowledge”,”recklessness and “maliciousness”.In the case of Norol Rojik Jun v Public persecutor [1976] 1 LNS 159.The accused was charged under section 302 of the penal code for the murder of his neighbour.There was a disagreement between both side and resulted with the accused attacking the deceased and his wife in their bed with a “parang”.The court of appeal found that the accused indeed had the intention to kill,this was based on the seriousness of the deceased injuries,type of weapon used and also the accused didnt stop the attack even after the deceased wife beg for him to stop. In conclusion,the prosecution must prove two elements of crime which is actues reus and mens rea.

b)

The most suitable defence that can be raise by Abu is unsoundness of mind General defences can be pleaded by the accused to defend himself from the charge that was upon him.If it is successful it will resulted to a acquittal.Based on the case of the McNaghten (1843) UKHKL J16.The secretary to the prime minister of england was murdered by the accused.The prime minister was the intended to be shot by the accused.The accused claimed that he was suffered a insane delusional that the prime minister had injured him.The accused acquitted on the basis that he was guility.According to the section 84 of the penal code “Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.There are two conditions that for this to work which is the person must experiencing a unsoundness of mind at the time of the crime and not aware of his action are either legal or not.Based on the case of Syahmi bin Hassan v Public prosecutor [2017] 5 MLJ 598.It was held that the appelant was experiencing unsoundness of mind at the time of the crime and because of that he can not that his action is wrong or right according to the law.

In this case,Abu suffering from mental problem and still receiving treatment and his wife doesnt know it.Abu heard a voice that encouraged him to stab her wife for unfaithfulness.This satisfy the first and the second condition for a successful defence to work which is experiencing a unsoundness of mind at the time of the crime and not aware of his action are either legal or not. In conclusion,abu can plead unsoundness of mind to defense himself against the charge....