Question 1 (Law of Agency)

Aina who had migrated to New Zealand, had appointed Donald to be her agent. Aina told Donald to sell her bungalow in Damansara for a price not less than RM 2 million. Aina also owns five other properties in Klang Valley which have been rented out. Donald was to collect the monthly rentals and keep proper accounts. Later, Donald informed Aina that he could not sell the bungalow at that price. Instead a potential buyer interested to purchase the property at RM 1.5 million. Aina agreed to his suggested and authorized the transaction for the said bungalow. Five months later, Aina returned to Malaysia for a holiday. She discovered that the buyer of the bungalow is Donald's wife, Siew Ling. She also realized that the collection and recording of the monthly rental were not in order. After full inspection, Aina discovered that the collection was in shortage of RM 150,000. Aina was very upset and she wishes to know whether Donald has breached his duties as her agent. Advise Aina for remedies that she can seek against Donald.

Question 2 (Hire Purchase Agreement)

Murugam had entered into an agreement to buy a car by installment from Tong Motors. He received a loan from Mei Bank. Unfortunately, he had defaulted payment for two consecutive months. Mei Bank sent a notice of repossession to Murugam on 1st February 2020. On 19th February 2020, Mei Bank sent an agent to repossess the said car. He wishes to challenge the validity the repossession made by Mei Bank's agent. In addition to that, Murugam has received an offer letter to study in Australia for two years. He wonders if he can assign his rights under the Hire Purchase Agreement to his father or whether he has the right to terminate the said agreement before leaving for his study abroad. Advise him.

Question 3 (Sales of Goods)

Jimmy ordered from Roy 500 pieces of woods to be used for a small renovation of his shop. Each piece of the woods should have a measurement of four meters long, six centimeters wide and four centimeters thick. They agreed that the payment would be made on delivery. On the date of delivery, Roy mistakenly sent the 500 pieces of woods with the rightlength and width but the thickness was only three centimeters instead of four. Jimmy refused to accept the delivery but Roy wished to claim for the agreed payment. The renovation of Jimmy's shop has been delayed for two weeks now and the estimated loss to him was RM7000. Both parties were not satisfied and wished to bring legal action against each other. Advise them.

Question 4

Discuss why do you think that Consumer Protection Act 1999 is better than Sales of Goods Act 1957 in protecting a consumer.

(1) In answering question 4, you must consider:

i) Whether the goods are goods under SOGA 1967, if the answer is yes then only Jimmy may bring his action based on SOGA.

ii) Whether Jimmy can reject the delivery of the goods and explain the ground of his action (reason for doing so).

iii) You must identify all the relevant principles i.e. what are the legal provisions or implied condition that was breached by Roy and possible remedies for Jimmy.

iv) You also need to explain whether Roy can claim the agreed payment.

(2) You should be able to come up with at least five points of discussion.

(3) Can you explain the answer based on an issues, principles, application and conclusion that use for the questions above.