CAVEAT EMPTOR

Lat. 'buyer beware.' This rule used to generally apply to all sales, especially between individuals. It gives the buyer full responsibility for determining the quality of the goods in question. The seller generally has no duty to offer warranties or to disclose defects in the goods.

This concept has been modified by various state and federal laws as well as principles such as consumer protection and disclosure statutes and implied warranties

i.e., of use, safety, etc. However, such things may provide incentive and redress, but not full protection against miscreants, so it is best to always be cautious.

Let the purchaser take heed; that is, let him see to it that the title he is buying is good. This was/is a rule of the common law applicable to the sale and purchase of lands and other real estate. If the purchaser pay the consideration money he cannot, as a general rule in every case, recover it back after the deed has been executed; except in cases of fraud, or by force of some covenant in the deed which has been broken. The purchaser, if he fears a defect of title, has it in his power to protect himself by proper covenants and if he fails to do so the law provides for him no remedy.

This rule was severely assailed as being the instrument of falsehood and fraud; but it was too well established to be disregarded and is still operative in many situations.

source: https://lectlaw2.securesites.net/def/c018.htm

KKK to Pay $2.5M for Assault and Battery

After a three-day trial at the Meade County, Kentucky courthouse, a jury rendered their verdict against the Kentucky chapter of the Ku Klux Klan and its leaders in a case brought by a teenager who was severely beaten by two of the chapter's members. The civil rights attorneys are hopeful that the assault and battery convictions will bankrupt the chapter.

Compensatory and Punitive Damages

The Nov. 14 verdict ordered the following compensation to be paid to 19-year-old Jordan Grover:

• "Imperial Klans of America" - $1.5 million for his medical expenses and lost wages
  
• "Grand wizard" Ron Edwards - $1 million in punitive damages.

The judgment is active for 15 years, giving Gruver and his attorneys — the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) — adequate time to pursue assets from the defendants.

KKK Lieutenants and Wizard Ordered to Pay

In 2006, former Klan "lieutenants" Andrew Watkins and Jarred Hensley beat Gruver, a Latino, breaking his jaw and causing permanent nerve damage to his arm. Watkins reached a settlement before the trial. Hensley represented himself at the trial, and will have to pay 40 percent of the compensatory damages, amounting to $600,000.

Property Will Be Seized

Wizard Edwards' real estate in Dawson Springs, Kentucky — which has served as the Klan's headquarters — will be targeted as part of the judgment for punitive damages, according to the lead SPLC attorney, Morris Dees. As Dees explained in his closing statement to the jury, "It's all about the money…if you stop the money, you'll cut the organization off."

Edwards, who also represented himself at the trial, says that he plans to appeal the verdict, and that the Klan will remain active. During the trial, he denied the charges and contended that his KKK chapter is not violent.

The current case echoes more than 10 other legal actions by the SPLC against hate groups. For example, in 1999, their lawsuit bankrupted the Aryan Nations, a white supremacist group.

source: http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com/articles/kkk-assault-battery.html

Battery

Battery is the criminal offence whereby one party makes physical contact with another party with the intention to harm them. In order to constitute battery, an offense must be intentional and must be committed to inflict injury on another. Battery is different from a similar offense called assault. An assault is any attempt to threaten or attack another party. Physical contact is not required to constitute an assault.

Battery can be considered a criminal offense and it can also be considered an intentional tort in civil court. An intentional tort is a purposeful action that is intended to cause harm to another individual. Battery, or any other intentional tort, is valid grounds to seek relief through a civil case. Through a civil legal case, the victim of battery can seek monetary compensation for their damages from the person who committed the battery. This civil case exists separately from any criminal charges that have been brought against the offender.

There are different degrees of battery that indicate the severity of the offense. Simple battery may include any type of non-consensual, insulting, or harmful contact, regardless of the damage done. Domestic violence can involve battery that occurs between two parties who are related by some degree (familial or intimate relationships). Sexual battery is defined as any non-consensual physical contact that is sexual in nature.

These types of battery are most often prosecuted as misdemeanors, though charges depend on the state where the crime took place and the nature of the offense. Acts of simple battery can be considered more serious when similar acts have previously been committed against the same victim. In some states, a second or third conviction for battery against the same individual is a felony. In domestic violence cases, battery charges may not be dropped against an offender, even at the request of the victim.

Aggravated battery is a battery offense that involves some aggravating factor. This type of battery offense is typically considered a felony offense, and the perpetrator can face incarceration, fines, and many other punishments. For an offense to be considered aggravated battery one or more of the following factors may have been involved: the battery was committed against a protected person (a child, peace officer, or person over 65 years of age); the battery involved a weapon (whether use was real or threatened); the victim suffered significant injury (loss of limb or permanent damage); or the offense occurred in a public transit vehicle or station, school zone, or other protected place.

There are a few arguments that may be used to defend a person charged with battery. Lack of intent can be argued by the defendant in a battery case to contend that the injurious physical contact was an accident. A defendant may also argue that the battery was committed in self defense or the defense of others or property.

source: http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com/terms/battery.html

Question 5

Gary and Ben wanted to sell all their shares to Jojo and Cool respectively. What is the effect of these transactions to the status of the company Sporty Sdn. Bhd.? Please justify your answer with a case law.

The status of the company will remain the same. Gary and Ben only sell all their shares to Jojo and Cool, in other words only the share holder change hand. Similar case law is has below:

ABDUL AZIZ BIN ATAN & 87 ORS V LADANG RENGO MALAY ESTATE SDN BHD (1985) 2 MLJ 165.

Facts

All the shareholders of the company sold and transferred their entire share holdings to a certain buyer

Issue

The court had to determine whether a change of employer took place

Held

An incorporated company is a legal person separate and distinct from its shareholders. The company, from the date of incorporation, has perpetual succession and did not change its identity or personality even though the entire share holding of the company changed hands.

REFERENCE

· http://syarikat.tripod.com/essential1.html

GYM MEMBER CLAIMS HE WAS 'MISLED'

Fitness First agrees to terminate one-year contract for a fee

AZREEN HANI

NADIRAH HANI RODZI

Tuesday, February 9th, 2010 08:53:00

LAKSHMI of Jalan Kuchai Lama alleges that the Fitness First Malaysia gym gave him "misleading" information when he signed up with its branch at Puchong IOI mall.

"Early last year when I took a year's membership at the gym, I was told I could terminate the contract on two grounds – if my physical condition is poor and I can no longer do workouts, or if I was transferred to another workplace where I have difficulty going to their Puchong IOI gym," he says.

"As proof, I could either produce a doctor's certificate concerning my poor health or an employer's letter concerning my transfer."

Recently, after being transferred to another workplace far from the gym, he sought to terminate his contract which runs until April 20 this year.

"I called up their Puchong IOI branch and spoke to their public relations officer," says LAKSHMI.

"He told me that I cannot terminate the contract midway and that I should also sign a letter of discontinuation so that the gym would not automatically renew my contract for another year, as apparently stipulated in their contract.

"When I told him that this was different to what I was told when I signed up, he told me to check the fine print of the contract. He did give me an option to transfer my membership to another person of my choice, but that it would require me to pay an administration fee of RM109."

LAKSHMI feels that the gym should have been more forthcoming about the contract details from the start.

● A FITNESS First Malaysia spokesperson says the company has checked LAKSHMI's membershipapplication form as well as the terms and conditions form.
"LAKSHMI is on a lifestyle membership which is a 12-month ongoing membership where the terms and conditions clearly state that termination is not allowed within the first year," she says, adding that the matter was acknowledged with LAKSHMI's signature on both forms.
However, the spokesperson also says termination within the contract period may still happen on a case-by- case basis, depending on the individual's situation and also for a certain fee.
"Our area business manager has been in touch with LAKHSMI and we have resolved the matter with him whereby an agreed fee has been paid for the cancellation of the contract."

source: http://www.mmail.com.my/content/27089-gym-member-claims-he-was-misled

Ah Long, Is legal by law?

Loan shark or more popular be called as Ah long is dangerous for people today. Ah Long is lending money to people who need it with unreasonable interest rate. Ah Long use legal loaner license as company cover. Instead Ah Long will use any necessary means to get their money with the interest rate back. Even though people know Ah Long is dangerous, still people see Ah Long for money. When Ah Long lends their money, Ah Long and the borrower make a contract as evidence for the deals. If Ah Long gets their money back in time, nothing big will happen. If people whose borrow from Ah Long unable to pay back the money will face a big problem. They always feel they life in threats. Ah Long use the contract as they shield from law. They have the contract to keep pressuring the borrowers to pay the money back.

The question is the contract is valid or can it be voidable or void?

Thus Ah Long business is truly legal by law?

Is the borrower protected by law? Since they were the one who willing to come to Ah Long for money.

Digi, Sales Agent and Customer

Mike is a student of public institute and major in business administration. One day when he go to hypermarket and was approach by Digi’s agent. The agent promotes him the Digi’s postpaid plan. Mike who is user of prepaid plan attempted to the promotion. Mike was thinking that the fee is affordable and the postpaid will be as a backup when his prepaid line does not have credit. So Mike and the sales agent come to agreement and make a contract. When Mike use the postpaid, he pay the bill every month. As a student Mike does not have income, he only has money from study loan. In the end, Mike decides to not use the postpaid and have outstanding fee of approximately RM200. Mike decide want to terminate the line. However Mike does not inform Digi center about his decision. He just left the postpaid. Nonetheless Digi still charge the fee every month even though he does not use it anymore. One day someone from Digi call Mike to inform him about his outstanding fee. Mike told them he wants to terminate the line. And the caller told Mike, he needs to pay at least 75% of the outstanding which is RM375 since his outstanding fee is RM500. Mike disagree with the caller since he do not use the postpaid and been charge for what he did not use. Mike argues with the caller, why Digi still charge him even though he did not use it. Mike argues Digi should know that when customer did not use it for one month is the signal the customer wants to terminate their service. Thus Digi should terminate automatically their service and inform the customer about the termination and outstanding fee. The caller asks did Mike read the contract before sign it. And the answer is no, the reasons is because the contract is too long to read in short time (since the deal is make at foyer of hypermarket). The caller told Mike that Digi will take an action law against him. And Mike’s name will be blacklist for all telecommunication company in Malaysia. The caller suggest an idea to Mike; Mike need to pay at least RM100 per month. Then Mike ask whether Digi will stop from charge him if he paid RM100 per month and the caller says no, Digi will still charge him. Which mean Mike still paid of what he did not use, if Mike does not settle at least 75% of outstanding fee.

The question is who fault is it? Thus the contract only protect Digi right and not Mike? Is the contract is valid or voidable base on the situation? Is Mike is victims of sales agent?