Welcome to my sites
Life is not simple as you think
Business Law
Article 1
Topic of the article: Damages are secondary, sue WSJ now, lawyers tell Najib
Author: V. Anbalagan
Date of article: 2 October 2015
Brief summary of the article:
Malaysian prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak had been advised by Malaysian lawyers to take legal action against Wall Street Journal, Malaysian branch under the basis of defaming him in one of their articles. The article published by WSJ, allegedly revealed that some US$700 million (RM2.6 billion) was deposited in Najib's personal bank accounts. The prime minister's team of lawyers is at its best to sue WSJ Malaysian's branch as the U.S. headquarters are protected by U.S. freedom of speech. The prime minister denies any allegation of acquiring the amount from state-owned strategic investor 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB).
Topic of business law this article relates to:
This article relates to law of tort which falls under defamation of character.
Explanation (if necessary) :
Defamation of character is the publication of a statement which affects a person's reputation. There is two types of defamation which is slander and libel. It is a slander defamation when statements are temporary or non permanent in forms such as speech or gesture whereas libel defamation is in permanent form such as film, newspaper, book or letter. Defamation also includes actions that tends to bring a person down or making the society to avoid and shun the person. The defamation in this case falls under libel when WSJ had permanently publish article online making it permanent in web browsing community.
As a defendant, the person can protect from defamation given the following factor is considered. Justification or truth must exist, fair comment which includes matters of public opinion, expression of opinion and not an assertion of fact, comment must be fair and comment must not be malicious.
Opinion:
At such statement released by WSJ on defaming the prime minister would make them liable to be indicted for legal action. The prime minister should sue WSJ as they did not have any proof claiming that the prime minister had transfer the fund of 1MDB to his personal bank account. Moreover, the statement from WSJ had affected his reputation as the prime minister of Malaysia and also the country's integrity. Therefore, the prime minister and his legal lawyers should take action immediately to WSJ as the company cannot addressed the issue published globally in such a way that can jeopardize one's reputation.
On the defendant side, the defendant is not oblige under protection as justification was not concrete due to lack of physical evidence or supporting their claim of 2.6billion into the account unless proven otherwise. Plus, the statement from WSJ is malicious to the prime minister because it may affect his reputation and may affect the integrity of his position. Lastly, the statement released by WSJ was not formed in the presence of parliament or judicial proceedings, therefore making it exempted from any privilege.
Article 2
Topic of the article: Local DJ calls out sly businessman for conning him.
Author: Esmond Lee
Date of article: February 2, 2016
Brief summary of the article:
Facebook user Timothy Damien Anthony, a local DJ, took to social media to call out a businessman, Chin Kee Chong who went into hiding with the fees for his performance at Hangover Damansara Perdana(HODP). Chin Kee Chong, the middleman owed Timothy and his partner their pay of performing at HODP for 7 days which had been accumulated to RM860. Since Timothy had been waiting for the payment from 24 November 2015 and Chin promised to pay on the 15th January 2016. However, Chin ignored Timothy's text since 22nd of January 2016 and took away their money.
Topic of business law this article relates to:
This article relates to terms of contract that falls under fraud in voidable contracts.
Explanation (if necessary) :
Vitiating factors, under Malaysian Contract Act Section 10(1) explains all agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of parties. Meanwhile, under Section 14, consent is said to be free when it is not caused by few elements. The elements of vitiating factors are coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation and mistake. Relating to this article, under Section 17, fraud happens when a person made a promise without any intention of performing it. However, the plaintiff can claim for compensation for any damage which he has sustained as stated under Section 76.
Opinion:
From this case, Timothy has the right to sue Chin, the middleman for fraud. It is a voidable contract because Chin had made a promise to pay Timothy RM860 for his 7 days performance in the club. The contract was voidable as the promisor made a promise without his or her intention to execute it. Based on legal Malaysian Contract Act Section 76, Timothy is entitled to receive a compensation for any damage which he has sustained. Since it is given that Chin had went missing, it is advisable for Timothy to file a police report in order to apprehend him and sue him so that legal action can be taken against him.
Article 3
Topic of the article: Order to return damaged waterproof phone
Author: Daily Express
Date of Article: 30 October 2015
Brief summary of article: The Present of Consumer Claims Tribunal, Datuk Lawrence Thien had instructed Seng Heng Electrik Sdn Bhd to prepare a refund of RM 2,000 on one of its customer, Chiew Tse Ming as the phone that was sold, Sony Xperia Z2 was damaged from water exposure during her trip to the swimming pool despite it being labeled as waterproof. Now, the company claimed that water exposure is not include in their warranty agreement and the amount of compensation was ridiculous as the phone’s current market price is now RM 1,499.
Topic of business law this article relates to: In relation to the article, the Sales of Goods Act (SOGA) 1957 would be most applicable and relevant to the discussion of the article. First, Section 2 of SOGA 1957 explains that the definition of goods being ‘every kind of movable property other than actionable claims and money; and includes stock and shares, growing crops, grass and things attached to or forming part of the land which are agreed to be severed before sale or under the contract of sale’. Implied term, Section 15, SOGA 1957 is also to be considered where the sale of the goods are by the description and the goods must correspond with the description accordingly.
Opinion: Our opinion resides with the fact that it is a breach of implied term of Section 15 of Sales of Goods Act 1957 when the phone suffers from damage as a result of expose from water, which completely went against its firm description of being waterproof, making Seng Heng liable under Section 15 of SOGA 1957 for selling goods that does not meet its description. To strengthen our reasoning, the terms in which a goods is define as coincides with the characteristic of the phone, making it liable under Section 2 of Sales of Goods Act 1957. Therefore, it would be at Chiew Tse Ming to file a lawsuit against Seng Heng for the breach of implied term of a contract as he has the right to do so.
Article 4
Topic of the article: Vape traders sue authorities for RM1m over ‘unlawful’ raids in Johor
Author: A. Ruban
Date of Article: 28 December 2015
Brief summary of article: Over 1,000 frustrated traders filed a lawsuit at High Court against several parties and are seeking damages for not more than RM1 million. According to the vape organization, IKHLAS they claimed that the authorities simply walked into the shops and confiscated the items before the ban on vape items is enforced. The sellers appealed in a news conference that they had loss between RM50,000 and RM100,000. Following, the sellers was not allowed to defend for themselves when their items were taken away. However, Johor government has confirmed the selling of vape items in the state should be prohibited starting 1st January 2016.
Topic of business law this article relates to: This article relates to Remedies under Damages which falls under common law action for compensation.
Explanation (if necessary):
Under damages, Section 74(1) stated that when a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by the breach is entitled to receive, from the party who has broken the contract, compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby, which naturally arose in the usual course of things from the breach or which the parties knew, when they made the contract, to be likely to result from the breach of it.
Opinion: In our opinion, the vape traders had made a right decision in suing the authorities consist of the Domestic Trade, Co-operatives and Consumerism Ministry, police and the local council. Besides that, it violates the freedom of speech when the sellers has not given the right to defend themselves when the authorities confiscating their goods. They should have given the rights to defend their goods since the government had enforced of banning vape on the January 1st 2016. However, there was no warning given by the authorities were given to the vape sellers to seize their goods.