1. English common law and the rules of equity form part of the law of Malaysia. Discuss the extent of the application of the English common law as applied in Malaysia today. 2. Malaysian law can be classified into written and unwritten law. Explain the term "unwritten law" in Malaysia. 3. Read and understand the case. Discuss the implication of the decision. R Rethena v The Government of Malaysia (1988) 1 MLJ 133 summary the fact and said the held of this article Facts: The plantiff sought declarations to the effect that sections 31 & 42 of the Employees' Social Security Act 1969 (SOCSO) were ultra vires the Federal Constitution. The plaintiff's contention was that these sections violated Article 8(1) of the Federal Constitution which provided for equal protection of the law for all persons and for equality of all persons before the law. The two sections of SOSCO were discriminatory because employees, in industries covered by SOCSO, were precluded from suing their employers under the common law for damages arising from injuries sustained in the course of employement. QUESTION 1: Read the case of Cameron Highlands Floriculturist Association (CHFA). Describe the legal issues that arose concerning the actions of CHFA in connection with the Competition Act 2010. Finding of Infringement under section 40 of the Competition Act 2010 - Infringement of Section 4(2)(a) of the Competition Act 2010 by Cameron Highlands Floriculturist Association On 4 March 2012, the President of the Cameron Highlands Floriculturist Association ("the CHFA"), Mr. Lee Peng Fo issued a statement published in the online portal of The Star that the CHFA will increase the prices of flowers by 10% effective from 16 March 2012. Mr. Lee Peng Fo as the President of the CHFA also mentioned that all its one hundred and fifty (150) members agreed to the said increase. (CHFA Adviser, Mr. Cheong Yun Meng suggested that the prices of cut flowers be increased and his suggestion was unanimously agreed upon by all the members who attended the meeting. All of them then decided to increase the prices of Cameron Highlands cut flowers by 10% and the increase was to come into force on 16 March 2012 for flowers sold in Malaysia and abroad, except Japan.) Based on that statement, the Competition Commission ( "the MyCC") as the body enforcing the Competition Act 2010 (hereinafter referred to as "the Competition Act") conducted an investigation relating to this matter. Results from the investigation conducted indicated that the CHFA members have engaged in an anti-competitive practice to fix, directly or indirectly, the selling price of their floricultural products by entering into a horizontal agreement between them which has the object or effect of significantly preventing, restricting or distorting competition in the floriculture market. In reference to the abovementioned definition, it is clear that a decision made by an association is also considered as an agreement. It is the intention of the Competition Act to widen the meaning of an agreement to also cover all the decisions made by an association without limiting it to just an ordinary agreement. 2.4. In this case, the decision made by the CHFA to increase the prices of Cameron Highlands cut flowers by 10% and the increase is to be enforced on 16 March 2012 for flowers sold in Malaysia and abroad, except Japan, is considered as an agreement. A copy of the Minutes of the Meeting on the Price Increase of Cameron Highlands Cut Flowers held on 28 February 2012 as submitted by the CHFA to the MyCC is referred to as evidence that there exists an agreement that was approved by the CHFA members. 2.5. Besides, the MyCC also considers that whether or not all the CHFA members complied with the decision made was of no relevance. Likewise, whether or not the decision made by the CHFA was applicable to all its members. This is due to the statement by Mr. Lee Peng Fo as published in the online portal of The Star that all its one hundred and fifty (150) members agreed to the said increase. Made a Summary and said the held QUESTION 1: summary tha fact and give held Read the case of Cameron Highlands Floriculturist Association (CHFA). Describe the legal issues that arose concerning the actions of CHFA in connection with the Competition Act 2010. Finding of Infringement under section 40 of the Competition Act 2010 - Infringement of Section 4(2)(a) of the Competition Act 2010 by Cameron Highlands Floriculturist Association On 4 March 2012, the President of the Cameron Highlands Floriculturist Association ("the CHFA"), Mr. Lee Peng Fo issued a statement published in the online portal of The Star that the CHFA will increase the prices of flowers by 10% effective from 16 March 2012. Mr. Lee Peng Fo as the President of the CHFA also mentioned that all its one hundred and fifty (150) members agreed to the said increase. (CHFA Adviser, Mr. Cheong Yun Meng suggested that the prices of cut flowers be increased and his suggestion was unanimously agreed upon by all the members who attended the meeting. All of them then decided to increase the prices of Cameron Highlands cut flowers by 10% and the increase was to come into force on 16 March 2012 for flowers sold in Malaysia and abroad, except Japan.) Based on that statement, the Competition Commission ( "the MyCC") as the body enforcing the Competition Act 2010 (hereinafter referred to as "the Competition Act") conducted an investigation relating to this matter. Results from the investigation conducted indicated that the CHFA members have engaged in an anti-competitive practice to fix, directly or indirectly, the selling price of their floricultural products by entering into a horizontal agreement between them which has the object or effect of significantly preventing, restricting or distorting competition in the floriculture market. In reference to the abovementioned definition, it is clear that a decision made by an association is also considered as an agreement. It is the intention of the Competition Act to widen the meaning of an agreement to also cover all the decisions made by an association without limiting it to just an ordinary agreement. 2.4. In this case, the decision made by the CHFA to increase the prices of Cameron Highlands cut flowers by 10% and the increase is to be enforced on 16 March 2012 for flowers sold in Malaysia and abroad, except Japan, is considered as an agreement. A copy of the Minutes of the Meeting on the Price Increase of Cameron Highlands Cut Flowers held on 28 February 2012 as submitted by the CHFA to the MyCC is referred to as evidence that there exists an agreement that was approved by the CHFA members. 2.5. Besides, the MyCC also considers that whether or not all the CHFA members complied with the decision made was of no relevance. Likewise, whether or not the decision made by the CHFA was applicable to all its members. This is due to the statement by Mr. Lee Peng Fo as published in the online portal of The Star that all its one hundred and fifty (150) members agreed to the said increase. Question 1 Which one of the following statements is incorrect? a) Misrepresentations cover false statements and half-truths. b) A statement which is true when it is made but becomes false before the contract is completed may amount to a misrepresentation. c) To be actionable the misrepresentation must be the only reason that persuaded the other party to enter into the contract. d) In English law there is no duty to disclose information before a contract unless the contract is one of the utmost good faith or a special relationship of trust exists between the parties. Question 2 Misrepresentation in a contract makes the contract: a) Void. b) Illegal. c) Voidable. d) Unenforceable. Question 3 An operative mistake in a contact makes the contract: a) Void. b) Illegal. c) Voidable. d) Unenforceable. Question 4 What is meant by a common mistake in the law of contract? a) A mistake that is often made. b) Where both parties make the same mistake. c) Where only one of the parties makes a mistake. d) Where the parties are at cross purposes. Question 5 George buys a vase from Louis for RM200. Louis believes the vase is worthless but George knows it is valuable. George later sells it for RM10,000. What legal action can Louis take against George? a) Sue George for the return of the vase as the contract is void for unilateral mistake. b) Sue George for breach of contract. c) Louis has no legal remedy. d) Sue George for the return of the vase as the contract is void for common mistake. Question 6 The possible remedies for negligent misrepresentation are: a) Rescission and damages. b) Damages only. c) Rescission only. d) Specific performance. Question 7 What does rescission of a contract mean? a) The contract is set aside and the parties are put back in the same position as if the contract had never been entered into. b) The parties are put into the same position as if the contract had been completed. c) Monetary compensation. d) A false statement of fact. Question 8 Which of the following statements is incorrect? a) Duress is where a party has entered into a contract after one party has threatened physical violence or serious economic coercion. b) The presence of duress makes a contract void. c) Undue influence is where a party has entered into a contract after excessive persuasion. d) The presence of undue influence makes a contract voidable. Question 9 When will the courts presume that there has been undue influence is the signing of a contract? a) Where there is a fiduciary relationship with the party against whom the undue influence is alleged. b) In all contracts made between a married couple (or a co-habiting partner). c) The courts will not presume undue influence. The party alleging undue influence must prove it has occurred. d) Where the contract is oral. Question 10 Sally contracts with her employer that she will have a salary of RM35,000 per annum plus a cash payment of RM20,000 at the end of the year which will not be declared thereby avoiding tax. Sally's employer has now refused to pay her the RM20,000. Can Sally take legal action to enforce the payment of RM20,000? a) Yes, Sally has completed the work as agreed. b) Yes, provide the contract is in writing. c) No, the contract is void for illegality. d) No, the contract is void for mistake. PART TWO: SHORT ANSWERS 1.Name the circumstances which will cause a contract to be defective. 2. What are the types of mistakes that render a contract defective? 3.Explain the following concepts: a) Rescission b) Affirmation 4.Describe the conditions that are required for a case of misrepresentation to be actionable. Pang Mun Chung & Anor v Cheong Huey Charn (2018) MLRAU, the Court of Appeal re-examined the application of the illegality doctrine. Facts: summary the fact Pang (a non-citizen) applied for a loan to finance his family's business but was not able to secure one from the bank for various reasons, one of which was the bank's internal policy of not lending to non-citizen. To work around this restriction, Pang involved the defendant, Cheong, a Malaysian citizen and his then-romantic interest in a plan to transfer his house to her name, which she agreed to hold on trust for his family. With the house registered in Cheong's name, Cheong applied for a loan from the bank on behalf of Pang's family and a charge was registered on the house as security for the loan. After 15 years of repayments by the family, Pang fell into financial difficulty. The bank then sold the house at a public auction, and from it there was a surplus of funds. Since the house was still registered in the name of Cheong, Pang sought to enforce the trust previously agreed with her to entitle him to the surplus. In the proceedings, Cheong invoked the illegality doctrine in counter-claiming her entitlement. She argued that the transaction between Pang and herself was a sham or so-called 'illegal' agreement, created to circumvent the bank's policy of lending to non-citizens. She argued that as a consequence of this deception and the true nature of the proprietary transfer, he could not be entitled to the surplus and the sum should belong to her. The High Court found in favour of Cheong.nt would confer an unjust windfall. The Court of Appeal therefore weighed two public policy issues: (1) the need to discourage unlawful acts and refusing them judicial approval; and (2) preventing injustice and the enrichment of one party at the expense of the other. Otherwise, a strict application of the illegality doctrine would result in a self-defeating principle of law. Key Takeaways The Court of Appeal's recent judgment demonstrates a willingness of the Court to shift away from strict applications of legal maxims. Therefore, it is not always the case that the Court will refuse to grant relief to a party to an illegal contract/act. On the contrary, the Court may still enforce an "illegal" contract, but the essential consideration is the public interest in the integrity of the legal system and proportionality of the outcome. Explain the concept of past consideration. 2.Discuss the implication of Kepong's case in respect to the doctrine of past consideration is not good consideration. Kepong Prospecting Ltd & Ors v. Schmidt (1968) Summary Facts: giving held and sub in the similar case to the fact In 1953 Tan applied to the Government of Johore for a prospecting permit for iron ore. He was assisted in the negotiations by Schmidt, a consulting engineer. A prospecting permit was granted to Tan in Nov 1953 and in Dec 1953 Tan wrote to Schmidt stating that Schmidt was to be paid 1% of the selling p rice of all ore that might be sold from any portion of the said land and this was in payment for the work of Schmidt had done in assisting to obtain the prospecting permit and for any work that Schmidt might do in assisting to have mining operations started up. Tan then executed a power of attorney in favour of Schmidt which conferred upon Schmidt widely expressed powers to contract for the disposal of any of Tan's mining properties on such consideration and subject to such conditions as Schmidt thought proper. In Sept 1955 an agreement was made between the company and Schmidt. Under Clause 1 of the agreement the company, inter alia, agreed to pay Schmidt 1 % of all ore that might be won from any land comprised in the 1954 agreement in "consideration of the services by the consulting engineer for and on behalf of the company prior to its formation, after incorporation and for future services." b Disputes arose between those originally interested in the company and the persons who were subsequently interested. Schmidt commenced the present proceedings in July 1959 claiming inter alia an account of all monies payable to him under the 1955 agreement. TUTORIAL 11 TERMINATION OF CONTRACT 1.List the ways in which a contract can be terminated. 2.Explain how bankruptcy or insolvency renders the discharge of liabilities. 3.a)Describe briefly the concept of frustration b)Explain the conditions for the doctrine of frustration to be successfully applied c)What is the effect of frustration on the contract? d)Cite a case law to illustrate the application of frustration. 4.Because injunction is an equitable remedy, the granting of an injunction is solely at the discretion of the courts depending on the case. Briefly provide the conditions that must be shown by the party who is applying for the injunction. 5.What is the rationale for the grant of a Mareva injunction? 6.The Anton Pillar order is said to be granted only in exceptional situation. Explain what would amount to such exceptional set of facts where the court feels justified to grant the order. 7.When the contract is rescinded, what will be the effects? 1. Explain the six different categories of property. 2. For a gift to qualify as a personal property, provide the three elements that need to be proven 3. Compare and contrast between the principles of law governing the rights of Finders of Lost, Mislaid and Abandoned Property. 4. What is bailment? 5. How is bailment created? 6. Explain the duties of the bailee. 7. What is the law that provides for Malaysians to have the freedom and right to own property? Give the answers must provide case and the should be specific without goole information