Law Case Study PDF

Preview

Summary

contract law...

Description

QUESTION 1

(A) Yes. Bee Min can sue KeyDin for loss incurred due to KeyDin’s failure to deliver the fishes and vegetables to him as instructed by KeyDin’s employer, Pak Su. Because KeyDin should have informed his employer, Pak Su once the lorry had broke down while on the way to Tanjung Malim which lead him to put a stop at Tapah to fix the lorry. By doing this, Pak Su would have informed Bee Mee about the broke down and would have let her know that there will be a little delay because he will be sending another lorry to deliver the fishes and vegetables and once KeyDin have done with fixing the lorry he would have just returned to Pantai Remis. So we can send the things to Bee Mee while we can also save the fishes and vegetables from getting stink or rotten. KeyDin should have checked the lorry before he left to deliver the vegetables and fishes to Tanjung Malim to avoid these breakdowns and he should do full inspection on the vehicle before he leaves for the delivery. Then, KeyDin should have also tried calling other workers to deliver the fishes and vegetables or he should have contacted any of his friends to help him to deliver the package. By the help of his workers or either his friends he should have delivered the fishes and vegetables to Bee Mee with a little delay and can apologized for the delay.

(B) Yes. In Section 178, the principal must make compensation to his employer or agent in respect of injury caused to the employer or agent by the principal’s neglect or want of skill. KeyDin is responsible to pay his hospital bill RM500 and RM1000 for the repairing for the lorry. KeyDin’s lorry skidded and overturned because he had exceeded the speed limit. This injury is happened because of KeyDin’s carelessness. The principal don’t have to compensate KeyDin because the injury is not caused by the principal’s careless or want of skill. Point, KeyDin has to pay all the bills.

QUESTION 2

ISSUE : It is contract that be made between Maru and Chong Lee exist.

COURT DECISION : Agent have failed in their duty to the principal, the principal agent has sold the land at a price between the current market price and the agent did not inform it to the principal that he had sold the land under the principal to his own wife.

SECTION : Based on Section 168, agent’s responsibility not to let personal interests conflict with the principal interests. That means during the cause of the agent cannot be conceal materials facts and not be honest in performing their duties to the detriment. Based on Section 169, initiated to claim from the principal’s agent of any benefits that have been delivered agents at the transaction made by the principal and the agents without knowing it failed to follow his instructions.

CONCLUSION OF THE CASE : Maru has the rights to take action against Chong Lee to cancel the transaction because it was Chong Lee has sold all of his duties to his wife own the land the personal purposes and for the benefit of principal. Contract between Maru and Chong Lee already exists and is valid since Maru appoint an agent to Chong Lee....