TRY ME!
Truck Accident Legal Advice
Ask Your Question For FreeSummary
Ramli auctioned fruits after an accident without employer Samads permission, potentially breaching contract. Ramli might argue necessity, citing Great Northern Railway Co v Swaffield (1874). Samad must prove breach of contract for damages, but court may side with Ramli due to necessity. Land Sale Commission DisputeFull Conversation
o Ramli, a truck driver was instructed by Samad, his employer to deliver * tons of fruit from Kenanga Village, Kota Bharu to Pahang Town. However, during the journey, the said lorry had an accident in Jerteh and could not continue the journey. Ramli tried to contact Samad by phone but to no avail. After thinking for a long time, Ramli has decided to auction the fruits because Samad is worried that he will suffer a greater loss if quick action is not taken. Ramli asks for your advice after finding out Samad wants to claim damages because Ramli has acted without instructions. Advise Ramli and Samad and include examples of relevant court cases.
The situation between Ramli and Samad involves contractual and employment laws. Here's what each party needs to consider:
*. Ramli: He acted without explicit permission, which can be considered a breach of contract. He might argue necessity in court, citing the case of Great Northern Railway Co v Swaffield (*).
*. Samad: If he wants to claim damages, he needs to prove a breach of contract. However, considering the situation, the court may side with Ramli because of the necessity of his actions.
Remember, this is general advice and the outcome in court can be influenced by various factors.
*. Ramli: He acted without explicit permission, which can be considered a breach of contract. He might argue necessity in court, citing the case of Great Northern Railway Co v Swaffield (*).
*. Samad: If he wants to claim damages, he needs to prove a breach of contract. However, considering the situation, the court may side with Ramli because of the necessity of his actions.
Remember, this is general advice and the outcome in court can be influenced by various factors.
o Sarah instructed Sofea to sell her land located in Mukim Tanjung Kupang worth RM * thousand. Commission will be given as much as RM * thousand after it is successfully sold. Sofea then received a deposit of RM20 thousand from the buyer on the sale of the property. He handed over RM * thousand to Sarah and kept another RM * thousand as his commission payment. Sarah later found out that Sofea also received RM * thousand as a commission from the buyer of the land, namely Zaitun. As someone knowledgeable in the field of law, advise Sarah and Sofea and include examples of relevant court cases.
The situation between Sarah and Sofea involves contract and agency laws. Here's what each party needs to consider:
*. Sarah: She might claim Sofea breached their agreement by taking extra commission. She may cite the case of Boston Deep Sea Fishing and Ice Co v Ansell (*).
*. Sofea: He needs to prove that he didn't breach the agreement. Remember, this is general advice and the court outcome can be influenced by various factors.
*. Sarah: She might claim Sofea breached their agreement by taking extra commission. She may cite the case of Boston Deep Sea Fishing and Ice Co v Ansell (*).
*. Sofea: He needs to prove that he didn't breach the agreement. Remember, this is general advice and the court outcome can be influenced by various factors.
On June *, Amna and Amni (a teenager) registered as partners under the name Terra Trading. On October *, while they were having lunch together, they met a company supplier, Mr. Fattah. Amna introduced Amni as one of its partners and also an agent for its company. 3 months later Amni made a contract with Terra Trading Company. When the goods arrived, Amna refused to take responsibility and stated that Amni had never been expressly appointed as its agent. Advise all parties involved and include examples of relevant court cases.
The situation involves partnership and agency laws. Here's what each party needs to consider:
*. Amna: She could be held liable as she introduced Amni as an agent. Refer to the case Hely-Hutchinson V Brayhead Ltd (*).
*. Amni: As a minor, his contractual capacity may be questioned.
*. Mr. Fattah: He acted in good faith, believing Amni was an agent. Look into Freeman & Lockyer v Buckhurst Park Properties (Mangal) Ltd (*).
Remember, this is general advice. Court outcomes can vary.
*. Amna: She could be held liable as she introduced Amni as an agent. Refer to the case Hely-Hutchinson V Brayhead Ltd (*).
*. Amni: As a minor, his contractual capacity may be questioned.
*. Mr. Fattah: He acted in good faith, believing Amni was an agent. Look into Freeman & Lockyer v Buckhurst Park Properties (Mangal) Ltd (*).
Remember, this is general advice. Court outcomes can vary.