FACULTY BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
BACHELOR OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (HONS)
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
FINAL TEST AUGUST 2022
BUSINESS LAW
(LAW416)
PREPARED BY
GROUP CLASS
PREPARED FOR
DR.
SEMESTER 2
SESSION 2022
STUDENT PLEDGE OF ACADEMIC INTEGRITY
As a student of Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM), it is my responsibility to act in
accordance with UiTM’s academic assessment and evaluation policy. I hereby pledge to
act and uphold academic integrity and pursue scholarly activities in UiTM with honesty
and responsible manner. I will not engage or tolerate acts of academic dishonesty,
academic misconduct, or academic fraud including but not limited to:
a. Cheating: Using or attempt to use any unauthorized device, assistance, sources,
practice or materials while completing academic assessments. This include but
not limited to copying from another, allowing others to copy, unauthorized
collaboration on an assignment or open book tests, or engaging in any act or
conduct that can be construed as cheating.
b. Plagiarism: Using or attempts to use the work of others (ideas, design, words,
art, music, etc.) without acknowledging the source; using or purchasing materials
prepared by another person or agency or engaging in other behavior that a
reasonable person would consider as plagiarism.
c. Fabrication: Falsifying data, information, or citations in any academic
assessment and evaluation.
d. Deception: Providing false information with intend to deceive an instructor
concerning any academic assessment and evaluation.
e. Furnishing false information: Providing false information or false representation
to any UiTM official, instructor, or office.
With this pledge, I am fully aware that I am obliged to conduct myself with utmost
honesty and integrity. I fully understand that a disciplinary action can be taken against
me if I, in any manner, violate this pledge.
__________________________
Name:
Matric Number:
Course Code: LAW416
Programme code: BA243
Faculty / Campus : FACULTY BUSINESS MANAGEMENT / UITM
*Students are required to sign one pledge for each course taken.
Bahagian Pentaksiran dan Penilaian Akademik
2021
Question 1
Danny has a pet shop, Pet Sweetheart, which sells pets and pet care products. Pet
Sweetheart also provides lodging for pets when the owner is away. Linda is a regular
customer of Pet Sweetheart as she usually sends her cat, Darling, for grooming and lodging.
Recently, Linda sent Darling for lodging in Pet Sweetheart as she had to work in Singapore
for a week. While in Danny’s care, Darling became ill and vomited a lot. Danny tried to call
Linda a few times as he was uncertain whether to take Darling to the vet, but he could not
get through. Worried that Darling’s health will get worse, Danny took Darling to the vet. He
had to pay RM500 for the vet’s bill and give medicine to Darling for the next 3 days. When
Linda returned, she was upset when she saw that the bill from Pet Sweetheart was more
expensive than usual as it included the vet’s bill and additional costs for looking after her ill
cat. Linda refused to pay as she did not authorize Danny to take Darling to the vet. Danny
claims that he had to do so as it was an emergency. Linda wants to know if she is liable to
pay.
Advise Linda on the above situation by applying the Contracts Act 1950 and relevant cases.
(20 marks)
Introduction
The relationship between two people when one person is designated to act on behalf
of another is covered under agency law. Agency is a legal term that refers to the relationship
between a principal and an agent who has been given permission to represent or act on his
behalf. According to Section 135 of the Contracts Act of 1950, a principal is the party for
whom an act is performed, and an agent is a person hired to perform a task or represent
another in interactions with third parties.
According to Section 136, anyone who is of sound mind and has reached the age of
majority (18 years or older) is eligible to become a principal. Anyone can be nominated as an
agent, but if that agent is underage or not of sound mind, he will not be held accountable for
his actions. The relationship between agent and principal has been established when Linda
consider has sent Darling to the pet shop for a week because she had to travel to Singapore.
Linda acted as a principal and the pet shop is an agent.
Content of Law
According to Section 167, in difficult situations, an agent has a duty to communicate
with and attempt to get instructions from his principal with all reasonable care. In cases of
difficulty, he must use all due care to get in touch with the principal and seek guidance from
him.
Referring to Section 142, an agent has authority, in an emergency, to do all such acts
for the purpose of protecting his principal from loss as would be done by a person of ordinary
prudence, in his own case, under similar circumstances.
In this case, Section 142 the Contract Act 1950, an agency may arise by necessity or
in an emergency. Danny tried to call Linda a few times as he was uncertain whether to take
Darling to the vet, but he could not get through. Worried that Darling’s health will get worse,
Danny took Darling to the vet. Danny has the rights to charge extra cost to Linda.
Application
The pet store is prohibited from charging Linda more money under Section 167, but
they are permitted to do so under Section 142. Due to Darling's life, the pet store used every
way possible to contact Linda. If Darling passes away at that point, Linda's loss will be more
expensive.
In accordance with the facts of the case GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY CO V
SWAFIELD (1874) LR 9 EX 132, the railway company (Plaintiff) was tasked with
transporting the defendant's horse to a location. No one travels to the location specifically to
take the horse. In order to ensure the horse's safety, the plaintiff took many steps to care for
it. After that, the plaintiff said that further expenses were incurred in order to protect the
defendant's interest. Plaintiff declined to make a payment. Because the station master was
responsible for making sure the horse was kept in a secure location in this instance, the
principal was forced to foot the cost, making the transport firm an agent by necessity.
Conclusion
As a result of Danny calling Linda and the fact that Darling's health is at stake, the
pet store has the legal right to charge more.
Question 2
Amin entered into a hire-purchase agreement for a car with Fast Forward Bank (FFB) for 7
years. He had diligently paid for the instalments every month until he died. Two months after
his death, FFB sent a 4th schedule notice asking for payment of the arrears as Amin
defaulted 2 months’ instalments. FFB warned that the car will be repossessed if payment is
not made within a week. Amin’s wife, Aminah informed FFB that Amin had passed away and
she is in the midst of arranging for the necessary documents as she has just been appointed
as the administrator of the estate. She also informed the bank that as the personal
representative of her husband’s estate, she wants to continue paying for the instalments as
there are only 5 months’ instalments left under the agreement. One week later, three men
came to tow the car from Aminah’s house. Even though Aminah told them that she was
planning to take over in paying the instalments, they towed the car and told her that she
must pay the defaults to FFB in 5 days or the car will be sold off. Aminah is terribly
disappointed and wants to know if the bank had acted lawfully.
Advise Aminah on the relevant statutory provisions of the Hire-Purchase Act 1967 in respect
of the above situation.
(20 marks)
Introduction
The main Act is the Hire Purchase Act 1967 (HPA). Hire Purchase agreement
includes a letting of goods with an option to purchase and agreement for the purchase of
goods by instalments (whether the agreement describes the instalments as rent or hire or
otherwise). Hire Purchase Agreement is a contract where the owner lets out goods on hire
and agrees that on the completion of payment the hirer may return the goods and terminate
the contract or elect to buy the goods. It is a transaction where a person acquires goods and
pays them off by instalments. Until full payment is made, title of the goods remains with the
owner despite possession been given to the hirer. The parties in this case are:
Hirer : Amin / Amin’s Wife
Owner : Fast Forward Bank
Content of Law
Owner has a right to repossess the goods if the hirer breached the hire purchase
agreement. Section 16 (1) of HPA states that owner can only repossess the goods if the
hirer defaults in two successive payments or if he defaults in the final payment. However,
Section 16(1C) of HPA further provides that when a hirer is a deceased, an owner shall not
exercise any power of taking possession of goods relating to payment of instalments unless
there has been four successive defaults of payments.
The owner can only repossess the goods after following certain procedures which
are as follows, notices must be given to the hirer when the goods are to be repossessed by
virtue of section 16(1) of HPA. He must serve on the hirer a notice in writing of his intention
to repossess the goods in the form set out in the Fourth Schedule. The period fixed by notice
in the Fourth Schedule must have expired and this must not less than 21 days. However, by
virtue of Section 16 (2) of HPA an owner need not comply with the requirements above if
there are reasonable grounds to believe that the goods would be removed or concealed by
the hirer.
Application
Amin entered into a hire-purchase agreement where he had to diligently pay for the
installments every month until he died. However, after Amin passed away, In Section 13 of
the Hire Purchase Act 1967, Aminah is the representative as she is the wife to Amin and is
entitled to assign her right and title under the hire purchase act after her husband’s (Amin)
death. However, she has just been appointed as the administrator of the estate and she also
informed the bank that as the personal representative of her husband’s estate, she wants to
continue paying for the instalments as there are only 5 months’ installments left under the
agreement.
In this case, according to Section 16(1b), the bank should attain court order before
they can serve Fourth Schedule notice to Aminah because Amin has already paid more than
75% of the car price but in this case, bank did not obtain the court order to serve the notice.
Nevertheless, the bank had ceased the car after 1 week they serve the notice. The notice is
not fully complete in order for them to ceased the Aminah car. They should fulfill the 21 days
after serving the notice to Aminah.
According to Section 16 (1C), the bank did acted lawfully after Aminah missed notice
in writing after the period fixed in the Fourth Schedule has expired and it has been more than
21 days. If referred to the to the case of PANG BROTHERS MOTORS SDN BHD v LEE
AIK SENG, the appellant issued a notice to repossess the car which was two (2) days short
of statutory minimum of 21 days. Consequently, the court held that the notice has no effect
under the law.
Conclusion
The conclusion is the Fast Forward Bank (FFB) acted unlawfully because of they
breach of Section 16(1B) and Section 16(1). Amin’s wife can take back the car from Fast
Forward Bank (FFB).
