Scribd
Upload
147 views4 pages

Draft Cases

This document discusses agency law principles in Malaysia, including: 1) An agent must disclose their representative status to third parties for a contract to bind the principal. For example, in Keighley Maxted & Co. V. Durant, the agent's failure to disclose he was acting for another meant the principal was not liable. 2) Agents are not entitled to compensation for misconduct, as seen in Mahesan v Malaysian Government Officers Co-operative Housing Society Ltd where an agent received an undisclosed bribe. 3) Reasonable notice must be given to terminate an agency relationship, with different notice periods qualifying as reasonable based on length of the prior relationship.

Uploaded by

assg USM
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
147 views4 pages

Draft Cases

This document discusses agency law principles in Malaysia, including: 1) An agent must disclose their representative status to third parties for a contract to bind the principal. For example, in Keighley Maxted & Co. V. Durant, the agent's failure to disclose he was acting for another meant the principal was not liable. 2) Agents are not entitled to compensation for misconduct, as seen in Mahesan v Malaysian Government Officers Co-operative Housing Society Ltd where an agent received an undisclosed bribe. 3) Reasonable notice must be given to terminate an agency relationship, with different notice periods qualifying as reasonable based on length of the prior relationship.

Uploaded by

assg USM
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

Ram and Gan

By Ratification

1. The agent must profess himself as agent to principal to third party during the time
of the contract.

- Cases:
Keighley Maxted & Co. V. Durant
Facts : The appellant, Keighley has authorized an agent who called Robert to buy
wheat at a given price. Robert purchased wheat at a higher price from Durant,
Keighley Maxted & Co. that represented by his manager Wright, to inform Robert
that he would use consignment of wheat no matter the price. Later, Keighley failed to
buy wheat from Durant. Therefore, Durant sued Keighley and Robert on hi loss
profits as Durant was forced to sell the wheat to others at a lower price.

Held : Since there was no ratification and no disclosure of agency made by Robert
during the contract period, the court held that Keighley was not liable to Durant

Presentaciones Musicales Sa v Secunda


Held : If the plaintiff has litigated within the appropriate statute of limitations, it is
acceptable for the plaintiff to adopt litigation procedures published without the
permission of his lawyer.
Fiduciary relationship

Section 171 An agent who is guilty of misconduct in the business of the agency is not
entitled to any remuneration in respect of that part of the business which he has
misconducted
Cases:
Mahesan v Malaysian Government Officers Co-operative Housing Society Ltd
Facts : The appellant is the director and secretary of the defendant’s co-operative
society. He purchased the land on behalf of the defendant at a price of RM 944,000.
The appellant was informed that the seller had previously paid RM 456,000 for it, but
failed to notify the defendant. The facts have proved that the appellant has received a
bribe or secret commission of RM122,000 from the seller.

Held : The defendant could recover either the bribe or the balance of its actual loss as
a result of the contract that held by Privy Council
Termination by revocation
Section 159 Reasonable notice must be given of such revocation or renunciation;
otherwise the damage thereby resulting to the principal or the agent, as the case may
be, must be made good to the one by the other

Sohrabji v Oriental Security Assurance Co


Held : 3 1/2 months’ notice is not enough to terminate an agency whose property has
been going on for nearly 50 years. In this case, a two-year notice will be a reasonable
notice.

Syarikat Jaya v Star Publication (M) Bhd


Held : The notice within 6 months of terminating the sole agency agreement is
reasonable. As a result, the 15 year business relationship between the newspaper
distributor and its sales agent was terminated.

Kimbokaya Sdn Bhd v Junior Apparel Enterprise Sdn Bhd


Held : 2 months’ notice for 4 years that held by Kota Kinabalu High Court. As a
result, a 4 years commercial agreement was terminated.

Merbok Hilir Bhd v Sheikh Khaled Jasem bin Mohamed


Held : 6 months’ notice for 8 ½ years

You might also like