A Clear, Concise Convincing: Right Case Laws Statutory Provisions

BUSINESS LAW
*ABILITY TO SPOT THE RIGHT CASE LAWS OR STATUTORY PROVISIONS.

i. Critically analyse and evaluate the question.
ii. Knowledge of concepts and principles of law.
iii. Application of knowledge in a clear, concise and convincing manner.
QUESTION 1 (max 3 page)

Explain, with reasons, whether the following contracts are valid, voidable or void:
a) Josh lost his wallet and mobile phone when he was travelling to work by bus. The next
day, Josh received a call from a lady named Megan who found his wallet and mobile
phone. Over the phone, Megan told Josh that “You must sell me your mobile phone for
RM100 or else I will steal your bicycle, I know where your house is”. Josh was too
frightened that Megan was going to steal his bicycle and agreed to Megan but now
regretted his decision. (6 marks)
highlight issue
define
case - nuri asia, can search other online(m’sia law cases for coercion)
apply law section 15
voidable , if josh wan terminate, can do so
Issue – whether a contract is valid, voidable or void between Josh and Megan
Law (explain what law, support with Act/Section, Cases) – the area involved in this
question is coercion. In CA1950, Section 15 states that
Application - By applying the above law into the question, Megan is threaten Josh
Conclusion – In conclusion, the contract is valid, voidable or void between Josh and
Megan
b) Jacob and Vanessa had entered into an agreement for the sale of a cargo of durians
arriving from Thailand to Malaysia. It turns out that both parties were not aware of the
types of durians. One party thought it was Musang King and the other party thought it
was D24. (6 marks)
mistake by both parties
can find ca1950 online (under msia law case)
Issue – Whether a contract is valid, voidable or void between Jacob and Vanessa.
Law (explain what law) – The area involved in the question is MISTAKE. In CA 1950,
Section 21 states that when both of the parties to an agreement are under a mistake as to
a matter of fact essential to the agreement, then the agreement is void. This answer can
be supported by referring to the case of Raffles v Wichellhaus. The court held that the
contract is void.
Application – By applying the above law into the question, both Jacob and Vanessa made
mutual mistake since both of them were not thinking on the same subject matter. One
party thought it was Musang King and the other party thought it was D24. As a result,
the agreement is void because 2 key elements have been satisfied under Section 21, which
are Jacob and Vanessa made mistake as to matter of faxt and the types of durians is
essential to the agreement.
Conclusion- In conclusion, the contract is void between Jacob and Vanessa.
QUESTION 3
Advise whether there is a good consideration provided in the following independent
situations:
a) Jonathan runs a business hiring out bicycles. He charges RM30.00 a day, payable at the
end of the hire period. Lenny agrees to hire a bicycle for a week. Half way through the
week he tells Jonathan that he is short of funds and can only pay RM10.00 a day.
Jonathan agrees to accept the lesser amount provided that he pays the money in full
straightaway. However, Jonathan later changed his mind wants to claim the balance of
RM20.00 a day. (6 marks)
-can rephrase
-Support relevant legiastration, case law
-support:case of karpal singh
-other section 64 illustration
Issue – Whether a good consideration is provided between Jonathan and Lenny.
Law (explain what law) – The area involved in the question is Part Payment. In CA 1950,
Section 64 states that a creditor may accept a lesser sum paid by the debtor in
satisfaction of the whole debt. This answer can be supported by referring to the case of
Raffles v Wichellhaus. The court held that the contract is void.
Application – By applying the above law into the question,

Conclusion- In conclusion, a good consideration is not provided between Jacob and
Vanessa.
b) Raymond was voted as “the best sales person of the year 2013” for having successfully
sold 500 units of cars. The company in which Raymond was employed told him that he
can buy any one of the new 2000 c.c. cars, worth RM150, 000 each, in the show room for
RM1, 000 only. This was in appreciation of his contribution to the company’s sales
revenue. Raymond could not believe that this is true. (8 marks)
- General rule is void
- Case relevant,
- section
- Illurastion
- Final conclusion
Issue – Whether a good consideration is provided between Raymond and his company.
Law (explain what law) – The area involved in the question is adequacy of consideration.
In CA 1950, Section 26 states that ……….. This answer can be supported by referring to
the case of Phang Swee Kim v Beh I Hock. The court held that inadequacy of
consideration was immaterial and gave judgement in favour of the appellant.
Application – By applying the above law into the question,

Conclusion- In conclusion, a good consideration is provided between Raymond and his
company.

A Clear, Concise Convincing: Right Case Laws Statutory Provisions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Clear, Concise Convincing: Right Case Laws Statutory Provisions

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Clear, Concise Convincing: Right Case Laws Statutory Provisions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BUSINESS LAW

*ABILITY TO SPOT THE RIGHT CASE LAWS OR STATUTORY PROVISIONS.

QUESTION 1 (max 3 page)

Application – By applying the above law into the question,

Application – By applying the above law into the question,

You might also like