ILAC-Prepare LAW299 for final test PDF

Preview

Summary

Prepare For Test (Nur Farahin binti Mohd Zamri, 2019401436)ISSUEWhether there is valid contract between Pelangi Record Sdn. Bhd and Natasya.Whether Terkenal Booksore, Highyat Electronic and Pelangi Record Sdn can sue Natasha under Contract Act 1950.LAWA legally binding agreement that takes place bet...

Description

Prepare For Test (Nur Farahin binti Mohd Zamri, 2019401436) ISSUE Whether there is valid contract between Pelangi Record Sdn. Bhd and Natasya. Whether Terkenal Booksore, Highyat Electronic and Pelangi Record Sdn.Bhd can sue Natasha under Contract Act 1950. LAW A legally binding agreement that takes place between two or more parties is a contract. The Act applicable to contract law is the contract act 1950. A contract is also said to be an agreement that can be executed by law under the Contracts Act 1950 Part 2 (h). However, the eight elements that must be present to execute a contract are offer, acceptance, consideration, intent to establish a legal relationship, certainty, formality, legal capability, and free consent. Nevertheless, only legal capacity that relevant to this case of eight elements. From this case is about law of legal capacity that any person who is capable of contracting is free to enter into that contract on his own terms. The court will enforce the contract if the consideration and intent of the agreement are legitimate and not found void, and he enters into it freely and willingly. According to Section 10 of the Contracts Act 1950, any arrangement that is made with the free consent of the party qualified to enter into the contract is a contract. In other words, at the age of 18, a person has reached the age of majority. A person contracts while he is of the age of majority according to the law to which he is subject, is sane, and is not excluded from the contract by the law to which it relates, according to Section 11 of the Contracts Act. According to Section 2 of the Age of Majority Act 1971, anyone under the age of 18 is considered a minor in Malaysia. Besides, the legal capacity is under apprenticeship. It means a contract in which a minor receives education or training for a trade or career, as well as valuable experience in that field. In addition, a contract of apprenticeship may be entered into by a child (under 14) or a young person (between 14 and 16). They have the right to sue or defend under such service arrangements, but no damages or indemnity can be recovered from him in the event of a violation. Based on case Doyle v White City Stadium (1935) the minor is a professional boxer with a British Boxing Board of Control deal. The minor's reward for the fight will be forfeited if he was disqualified, according to the agreement. As a result, the agreement was held to be binding on the minor because it was intended to promote not only clean combat but also boxing proficiency, which was beneficial to the minor. Furthermore, it is far broader than the necessities of life, which involves products and services that are fairly important to the minor's actual needs, as well as vital to the minor's or infant's existence and fair comfort. As a result, requirements can differ depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the case of Government of Malaysia v Gurcharan Singh (1971) Gurcharan Singh is claiming 11500 dolars, which is the sum spent by the government on the dendant's education. The defendant was a minor at the time of the contract. The court decided that education was appropriate, and that the government was responsible for reimbursing him for the fair amount spent on him. The necessities are determined by minor life circumstances. APPLICATIONS

This case stated that Natasha is a 15 -year -old girl who bought several books by entering into a joint contract with Famous Bookstore. At the same time, he promised to pay it in five months' time but he failed to pay it within that time. Based on case Doyle v White City Stadium (1935) due to her which is the minor being underage the contract is void but there are exceptions through necessaries based on case of Government of Malaysia v Gurcharan Singh (1971) where education are necessaries for a girl as old as Natasha by buying a few books for his needs. With this under the law capacity the action imposed on the minor is only by taking back the books that have not yet been paid for by her due to the reason that to meet her needs in education. Similarly, the purchase of his mobile phone worth RM3000 which failed to be paid within the given time period. Based on case Doyle v White City Stadium (1935) due to her which is the minor being underage the contract is void but was not exempted from the necessaries condition because the item was her will based on case of Government of Malaysia v Gurcharan Singh (1971) where the item just wants to fulfill her desires so that he can chat with his friends as well as teachers online. So that the company only can taking back her mobile phones also. However, there are legal contract between Natasha and Pelangi Record Sdn. Bhd. Based on case Doyle v White City Stadium (1935) due to her which is the minor being underage but her father who came to a contract to be an artist to the company in making room for Natasha’s talent that benefits underage girl. With this the contract is valid and action can be taken under Contract Act 1950 even if there is not enough capacity but her father did so to fulfill the apprenticeship on Natasha. CONCLUSION In conclusion, whether Pelangi Record Sdn. Bhd can sue Natasha under Contract Act 1950 because of breach of contract breached by her yet signed by her father even though Natasha was still a minor and there is valid contract between them. As well as Terkenal Booksore, Highyat Electronic cannot impose action on Natasha under the Contract Act 1950 because she is still under age and the contract is canceled....