BUSINESS LAW
LAW OF TORT
◦CASE
◦PLAINTIF NG EU KHOON
◦DEFENDANT DR. GWEN SMITH AND 2 OTHERS
◦SUMMARY
◦BORN PREMATURE INVOLVES 3 DOCTOR
◦BABY BLIND AFTER 1 YEAR
◦JUDGEMENT
◦FIRST DEFENDANT NOT GUILTY
◦THE SECOND AND THIRD DEFENDANT ARE GUILTY
◦PLAINTIF GET COMPENSATION RM 100K
LAW ON SALE OF GOODS
CASE: Lim Chui Lai v Zeno Limited [1964] 30 MLJ. 314
FACTS
• Zeno Ltd entered into an agreement with a contractor named
Ahmad.
• Under the contract, Zeno Ltd was to provide Ahmad with all the
materials for the culverts construction.
• They brought the materials for the projects and delivered them to
the construction site.
• Later, Ahmad's
cancelled.
contracts
with
Petaling
Jaya
Authority
were
• Discovered that the materials had been sold by Ahmad to Lim Chui
Lai.
ISSUES FOUND
Buyer bought goods from a non-owner.
• Whether Buyer has obtained a good (valid) title.
• Whether Buyer can sue under s.14(a) SOGA.
HELD/JUDGEMENT
• Ahmad was merely the bailee & not the owner of the goods at
the time he sold them to the Appellant.
• Because Ahmad had no title to the goods / authority to sell
them, he could not pass any title to Appellant.
• Thus, Lim Chui Lai does not have the title upon the materials
bought from Ahmad
SUMMARY
◦From my understanding, even though Ahmad had to be
deserved the name for the owner of the material, but
according to Sale of Good Acts 1957, section 27, Ahmad was
merely the bailee and not the owner of the goods at the time
he sold them to the appellant. Since Ahmad had no title to the
goods or authority to sell them, he therefore could not transfer
any title to the appellant.
LAW OF AGENCY
CASE : Chan Yin Tee v William Jacks & Co. (Malaya) Ltd.
(1964)
M.L.J 290.
FACTS
• Appellant and one Yong, a minor were registered as partners.
• Meeting with representative of the respondent company, the
appellant held himself out to be Yong’s partner.
• Goods were supplied to Yong...