Direct Line Insurance pls v Kenneth Ronald Fox

In April 2007, a fire at the insured’s house caused serious damage to the kitchen and hall and smoke damage to the remainder of the house and contents. the insured claimed under his home and contents policy and the insurer paid out various sums for alternative accommodation and damaged contents. Under a written aggreement date 7th June 2007, the insured agree to accept “in full settlement and discharge of all my buildings claims under your policy”.

The insurer relied primarily on the terms of the policy, which provided:” If any claim or part of a claim is made fraudulenty or falsely, the policy shall become void and all benefit under this policy will be forfeited’

According to Pinsent Masons LLP, there is still uncertainty as to whether a fraudulent claim should be treated as a breach of the duty of utmost good faith, so as to render policy void from the very beginning, or as a breach of special common law rule that invalidates the insurance claim, but not the policy as a whole. Recently, courts have appeared to favour the common law approach.

Based on Pinsent Masons LLP, The effect of this attempted fraud however was limited to the balance due under terms of settlement agreement, so thse questions were ultimately left unresolved.

Insurance Act 1996

According to law of Malaysia, an insurance act is an act to provide new laws for the licensing and regulation of insurance business, insurance broking business and adjusting business and for other related purposes.

adjusting business means the business of investigating the cause and circumstances of a loss and ascertaining the quantum of the loss.

Insurance Act 1996 is an act being enacted by the Seri Paduka Baginda Yang di=Pertuan Agong with the advice and consent of Dewan Negara and Dewan Rakyat in Parliament assembled and by the authority of the same.

This act is serve to provide licensing to company which interest on doing business related to insurance and present regulations for insurance business or financial advisory business. A financial advisory business is a business that analyzing the financial planning needs of a person relating to insurance products, recommending the appropriate insurance products, and arranging of contracts in respect of insurance products.

It is good that there is an act that can protect people whom bough insurance and present a guide to insurance company that what can be done and what is prohibited to do.

Malaysia Code on Corporate Governance

The Malaysian Code on Corporate Governance was developed by the Working Group on Best Practices in Corporate Governance. The code provide an initiative to the private sector that there is a standards that employer and employees can review on it. The code presents regulation that initiate employees the duties that must follow in the company. According to Securities Commissions(2007), self regulation was preferable and the standards developed will be more acceptable and thus more enduring.

The code set up the principles and practices for the entire employees in a company about the structures and performances of a company that may help a company to operate its function towards achieving optimal governance framework. Based on the Securities Commissions(2007), the code issues include composition of board, procedures for recruiting new directors, remuneration of directors, the use of board committees and their activities.

According to Securities Commissions(2007), the important of the code that serve as one of the standards review for employees is that it provide more constructive and flexible working conditions response to raise standards in corporate governance when it is compared to black and white paper by statute or regulation.

This is good to practices in a company that people can follow the code and work with more discipline under the code. Moreover, it provides more efficiency in the working performance and people are well managed under a big company by following the code.

Inroduction of Director in Company law

A company forms in Malaysia is entitle to Companies Act 1965. According to Malaysia Companies Act,1865, a company must contain minimum of two directors where they are being natural persons of full age and having their principal or only place of residence in Malaysia and do not faced bankruptcy. However, directors can be serve as not part of shareholders of the company. A director has onerous duties under Companies Act as in common law. Then, these directors is entitle to code of ethics which defined the company ethics code.

Based on the Companies Act 1965, a register of directors is kept at registered office of company and is always available for public inspection. Then, the first directors of a company shall be named in memorandum or articles of the company. An director that is appointed by the company that constitute the corporation shall be read and construed in any provision of the memorandum or articles of a company

Interdeals Automation v Hong Hong Documents SDN BHD

The main issues arise from this two company is about to an unpaid seller of goods. the plaintiff under this issues is the Interdeals Automation (M) Sdn Bhd where the defendant is Hong Hong Documents Sdn Bhd. the details is that the plaintiff and defendant entered into an legal biding contract for the sale and purchase of a unit of machinery called KErn Page Mailer 18000. the defendant paid 30% of the total amount of purchase and agreed to pay the remaining amount due not later than seven days after its testing and commissioning.

Then, the defendant did not pay the remaining amount to several reasons. Firstly, the defendant claim that the machine was not reasonably fit for its purpose and it was not a merchantable quality. Then, the plaintiff misrepresented the function of the machines to defendant. Next, the plaintiff failed to mitigate its losses when the defendant is liable in damages.

At the conclusion, the learned judge held that the goods sold were of merchantable quality and the plaintiff did not misrepresentation the performance of the machine. However, he held that the plaintiff failed to mitigate damages which is a duty responsible to plaintiff and this remedy lay in damages under section 56 of Sale of Goods Act 1957.

So, the judge directed the defendant to return the machine to the plaintiff and plaintiff has now appealed the learned judge’s decision. Thus for my opinion, if the plaintiff found guilty on any defenses shows by the defendant, the plaintiff should dismiss the case and it is advice to maintain back the good relationship with the company for the chance to future working together agian.

Breach of Contract

Under the Sales of Good Act 1957, there are several conditions that suits for breach of the contract according to Law in Malaysia.

Firstly, when the goods has passed to the buyer under a contract, if the buyer wrongfully neglects or refuses to pay for the goods according to the terms and conditions of the contract, the seller allow to sue the buyers for the price of the goods. So, the buyer has to pay the seller the amount if the terms and conditions of contract is met.

Next, the sellers are allow to sue the buyers not only at the price of the goods, but damages for non-acceptance. According to Sales of Good Act 1957, if the buyer wrongfully neglects or refuses to accept and make payment to the goods, sellers have the right to sue buyers for the damages for non-acceptance.

On the buyers side, buyers have the rights to sue seller if the breach of contract is met. This means that if the seller wrongfully neglects or refuses to deliver the goods to the buyer, the buyer stand a right to sue the seller about the damages for non-delivery.

‘Goods Sold are not Returnable’

Most of the times we will notice that there is an exclusion clause written: “Goods sold are not refundable ” in front of the counter in many shops. It means that once you make payment on the goods that you want, any exchange or refund on the goods are not allowed if the goods is found defective.

However, there is no legal law pertaining to contract in Malaysia that proved this statement ” Goods sold are not refundable”. This is told by my friend as well whom studying law in Multimedia University. As told by my friend that, if customers found the goods bought is defective, he or she allow to ask back for money that was paid. This is the right that customers deserved to have based on the goods bought from shop.

Normally the merchant will refuse to pay back the money and threaten customers by saying ” Let’s bring it to court”. According to Tribunal Tuntutan Pengguna Malaysia, once the goods is proved defective, the merchant will found guilty and refund customers money if the case brings to Small Claims Tribunal Court.

It is important that all the customers know about their right in order to avoid any case that may happen in the same situation to destroy any action taken by the merchant on customers without any legal issue on that action. Thus, customers should always learn about their rights and use it wisely when the different situation met.