Employment Act

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s) : 402
  • Published : February 28, 2013
Open Document
Text Preview
Table of content
Content| Page|
1. Question 2………………………………………………………………. 2. Question 3 ……………………………………………………………… 3. Question 5 ……………………………………………………………… 4. Question 6 ………………………………………………………………| 24912|

Question 1
In Malaysia the governing law that addresses partnership matters is provided in the Partnership Act 1961. a) The general rule for the extent of a partner’s liability is that every partner in a firm is liable jointly with the other partners for all debts and obligations of the firm incurred while he is a partner. Discuss.

b) What are the ways in which a partnership may be dissolved?

Question 2
Fact of case:
a. Mr. Pity bought a BMW (reg. no. KK 8888) from Mr. Kaya at purchase price of RM 32,000.00. b. Deposit RM 9,900.00 was paid and a loan of RM 22,100.00 has been granted by Mr. Kaya with repayment period 35 month’s installment. c. Mr. Pity want to do full settlement as he have a purchaser for the car but was told that the transfer of the car could not be done due to the registration number (KK 8888) is belong to a motorcycle (FR80). d. Mr. Pity had returned the car to Mr. Kaya and requested to refund the deposit of RM 9,900.00 and RM 17,192.00 for the amount of 28 month repayment from Mr. Kaya. e. Mr. Pity also claimed damages arising out of the expenses of hiring a car for his use and damages for anxiety caused as being blacklisted by financial institution. In this case, Mr. Kaya had no good title to the BMW car No. KK 8888 when the hire purchase agreement was entered into on 19 March 1991 because it is not suits with Section 27 of the Sale of Goods Act 1957. In Section 27 of Sale of Goods Act implies that if goods are bought from a person who is not the owner, and who does not sell them under his authority, the buyer does not acquire any title. This 'Nemo dat qoud non habet' (which means, no one can give a better title than he has himself) rule serves to protect the right of the owner. As in the case of Ng Ngat Siang vs. Arab-Malaysian Finance BHd. & Anor (1988) 3 MLJ 319 where the plaintiff bought a car from the second defendant, the registered owner of the car. The second defendant had to pay off MUI Finance from whom he had earlier obtained a hire-purchase facility in order plaintiff's name. For this purpose the second defendant retained the registration card. Upon obtaining the cancelation of endorsement of MUI's ownership, the second defendant sold the car to B whose purchase was finance by the first defendant. The first defendant endorsed its ownership claim on the registration card. The plaintiff applied to the court to determine as to whether he or the first defendant had a better title to the car. In the judgment, after a full payment was made by the second defendant to MUI Finance and MUI Finance had relinquished all rights to ownership over the car, the plaintiff had acquired ownership to the car and the second defendant's further dealings on the car with the first defendant are therefore illegal. To that end, the first defendant acquired no title or interest over the car when they purchased it and their only remedy, if any, is against the second defendant personally for the return of the purchase price but as against the plaintiff they cannot claim any right of ownership over the car. Mr. Pitty is also had no good title to the BMW car No. KK 8888 since it is also not suits with Section 14(c) of the Sale of Goods Act 1957. That is why the JPJ had taken the action to detained the registration card, due to the car may be suspected to be stolen or a fraud registration. Reference:

Section 27 Sale of Goods Act 1957 - (1) Subject to this Act and of any other law for the time being in force, where goods are sold by a person who is not the owner thereof, and who does not sell them under the authority or with the consent of the owner, the buyer acquires no better title to the goods than the seller had, unless the owner of the goods is by his conduct precluded...
tracking img