In January 2005, Bersatu Finance Bhd entered into two hire purchase agreements with Samad, a restaurant owner, for the hire-purchase of a van and a freezer. On 2nd August 2005 Samad entered into another hire purchase agreement in respect of a washing machine which he installed in his home for his wife's use. Recently due to the economic recession in the country, Samad found himself short of money, so he sold the van to Jalil on November 2006. Soon after, his business collapsed and his goods in the restaurant, including the freezer, were seized by Kadir, a creditor, in execution of a judgment on 2nd Febuary 2007. Up to the time of the sale of the van and the seizure of the freezer, Samad had paid 60% of the hire purchase price of these goods. Since December 2006 he had not paid the hire purchase instalments for the washing machine. Bersatu Finance Bhd had just learnt of the failure of Samad's business, the sale of the van to Jalil and the seizure of the freezer by Kadir. On learning that the washing machine was still with Samad, Bersatu Finance Bhd sent Dol, their agent and repossessor, to take back the washing machine. Samad refused to allow him to do so. In rage Dol punched him and broke his tooth. He then repossessed the washing machine. The next day Samad went to Bersatu Finance Bhd to claim back the washing machine by offering to pay one month's instalment. He also claimed compensation for the injury that befell him. Both claims were refused. Bersatu Finance Bhd claimed that they were not responsible for Dol's action and that Samad had to settle all defaults in instalments in addition to cost of repossession. Task Discuss the legal position of the parties involved in respect of the van, freezer and the washing machine.