UNIVERSITI MALAYSIA SABAH

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING

HK03 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING PROGRAM

SEMESTER 1, 2017 / 2018

KC08803 ETHICS AND LAWS FOR ENGINEERS

ASSIGNMENT 6

LECTURER : DR JIDON ADRIAN JANAUN

NO NAME MATRIC NO
1. ANEESCH PREETHA A/P VIDA NAIGAM BK 13110587
2. JASHERA REDDY A/P N.RAVINDRAN BK 14110124
3. JASHVINI A/P GUNASEKARAN BK 14110125
4. NAANDINI A/P LINGANATHAR BK 14110169
5. SAVITRA LAKSMI A/P VEJAYAN BK 14110213
KC08803 ETHICS ASSIGNMENT 6 SEMESTER 1 2017/2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................................... 1
QUESTION 1 (Syarikat Buy Anything Sdn.Bhd) ................................................................ 2
Question 1 (a) ........................................................................................................... 2
Question 1 (b) ........................................................................................................... 4
Question 1 (c) ........................................................................................................... 5
Question 2 (The Gullibles) ............................................................................................. 9
Question 2 (a) ........................................................................................................... 9
Question 2 (b) ..........................................................................................................13
Question 2 (c) ..........................................................................................................14
REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................18
APPENDIX ...................................................................................................................19

LIST OF FIGURE

Figure 1 Types of claims as stated in the Tribunal for Consumer Claims (The Tribunal For
Consumer Claims,2017) ................................................................................................10

LIST OF TABLE

Table 1 Task Distribution ..............................................................................................19

1
KC08803 ETHICS ASSIGNMENT 6 SEMESTER 1 2017/2018

QUESTION 1 (Syarikat Buy Anything Sdn.Bhd)

Question 1 (a)
Advise Syarikat Buy Anything Sdn.Bhd on its rights and remedies available to it. (20 marks)

In this case study, Syarikat Buy Anything Sdn. Bhd. is the distributor of specialized forklifts,
not the manufacturer. The two parties were coherent on disregarding the first written
agreement (contract) they established in which it was specified through the contract that
time is of essence. The seller had obligation to deliver the specific forklift to Syarikat
Anything Goes Sdn.Bhd, the buyer in this case within certain due date. It was made clear
that this contract has actually been breached by the seller party due to “delivery on time”
clause. Instead of bringing this breach of contract to the eyes of law, Syarikat Anything
Goes Sdn. Bhd. was willing to overlook the breach.

Following this, both the parties got into the second agreement and they settled upon
extending the delivery date to a revised date. When Syarikat Anything Goes Sdn.Bhd was
proposed with a better offer that provided the similar forklift for a very cheaper price, the
buyer terminated the contract without consent from the seller in order to accept the offer.
This time the breach of contract occurred due to the failure of seller to fulfil the contractual
obligations, whereby the specific forklift that was previously ordered will be delivered to the
buyer within the revised delivery date for the same price by the seller. So, it can be
concluded that the first contract was nullified mutually provided the seller can deliver the
product by the revised delivery date as per one of the clauses that was clearly agreed on by
both the parties. The buyer is mainly responsible for the breach this time as the reason they
cited is highly invalid.

As contract is a legally enforceable agreement between two or more parties, the seller
as the non-breaching party has rights to bring this case to the eyes of law and to receive
relief through the courts. Usually, in case of a breach of a contract, the non-breaching party
gets to fulfil the rights through the remedies provided to them. Though, it was unclear
whether the remedy clauses were part of the contract, the seller still has the liability to
damages. There are a number of remedies that could be practiced according to the clauses
and requirements established earlier through the contract, the basic five being suit for
damages, suit for injunction order, suit for rescission, suit for Quantum Meruit, and suit for
specific performance. In this case, this breach will be treated as a total breach, since the
required product is fully ready to be delivered upon the revised delivery date.

2
KC08803 ETHICS ASSIGNMENT 6 SEMESTER 1 2017/2018

First and foremost, damage in legal term means monetary compensation that a
breaching party owes to the non-breaching party due to the loss and injury caused which
are dependent on the nature of the case. The fundamental principle for this remedy is not
punishment by law instead, to compensate the non-reaching party for the loss that was
caused by the breaching party. Next, Quantum Meruit means “as much as earned” which
can be translated as corresponding to the work done. The claim for Quantum Meruit is not
valid if both the parties have agreed on to pay or fixed a price for the good supplied. As for
specific performance, the nature of the case is such in a way that monetary compensation
for its non-performance is not an adequate relief. Injunction specifies an order from a court
that restrains a person from doing a particular act. This remedy is only applicable if the
breaching party has done something that he promised/ established would not do earlier
through the contract. Rescission means cancellation of contract. For instance, when a party
has failed to obey the contractual obligations, the affected party can refuse to perform his
part of performance. From all these five remedies discussed up there, it could be seen
clearly that the seller has the rights to sue for monetary compensation as the rest of the
remedies are not fulfilled according to the nature of the case.

Since monetary compensation is adequate for the case, the seller can practice the
right to sue for damages. There are a few types of damages namely general damages,
specific damages, nominal damages, vindictive damages and liquidated damages. When only
direct loss is compensated following the nature of the case, it is known as general damages.
When both indirect loss and direct loss are compensated, that would be specific damages.
In certain cases, a party might not come across any loss, when court decided on a little
amount of compensation; it is called as nominal damage. When a party undergoes a heavy
loss that could not be settled with money, the court orders for a heavy monetary
compensation called vindictive damage. When the terms of contract determine the amount
of compensation, liquidated damage comes in practice.

Regarding this case, liquidated damage would be highly likely for the seller to sue for.
Since this case will be treated as a full breach, the seller can demand for monetary
compensation in an amount equal to the sum the seller would have received at the
completion of the contract, including the lost profits. The seller is entitled to a compensation
of RM 900,000 together with the loss of profit. Being the distributor, the promised amount
might be paid to the manufacturer if the payment was not done earlier after the buyer
places the order.

3
KC08803 ETHICS ASSIGNMENT 6 SEMESTER 1 2017/2018

Question 1 (b)
Would it have made a difference to your advice if the revised date was not agreed upon?
(10 marks)

In my opinion, I believe that it would have made a difference to the advice if the revised
date was not agreed upon because it would have breached the agreement contract made by
the buyer and the seller. Based on Laws of Malaysia, specifically Act 382 (Chapter IV
Performance of the Contract) from Sale of goods act 1957, it stated that it is the duty and
responsibility of the seller to deliver the goods in accordance with the terms of the contract
of sale. (The Commissioner Of Law Revision, 2006)

Hence, the buyer has the right to terminate the contract if the revised date was not
agreed upon. This also implies that the seller would be fully accountable for the loss and
damages involving the breaching of the contract. This is also supported by the law stated in
Chapter VI Suits for breach of the contract, whereby the seller has to be liable for the
damages for non-delivery, which justifies the rights of the buyer to sue the seller for
damages for non-delivery when the seller wrongfully neglects or refuses to deliver the goods
to the buyer (The Commissioner Of Law Revision, 2006) Thus, in this case, the seller will be
accountable for wrongfully neglecting to deliver the goods if the seller did not comply to the
revised date.

4
Question 1 (c)
Draft a statement of claim on behalf of the seller. (20 marks)

In the Ipoh High Court

Jalan Panglima Bukit Gantang Wahab, 31650 Ipoh, Perak.

In the matter of a breach of contract

Between: Syarikat Buy Anything Sdn. Bhd., Ipoh, Perak. ...(plaintiff)

And: Syarikat Anything Goes Sdn. Bhd., Ipoh, Perak. ...(defendant)

Statement of claim

Filed by Mr. Aben Santorini, an authorised officer for the plaintiff, Syarikat Buy Anything
Sdn. Bhd. Ipoh,Perak. The plaintiff claims:
KC08803 ETHICS ASSIGNMENT 6 SEMESTER 1 2017/2018

Background to cause(s) of action:

1. The defendant was to purchase one unit of forklift where
there was a written agreement between the plaintiff and the
defendant on 15.3.2010 wherein the defendant agreed to
purchase the unit of forklift for
RM 900,000 which was also agreed to be delivered on
22.3.2010 to the defendant by the plaintiff.

2. The defendant paid a 10% deposit of the purchase price

amounting to
RM 90,000 and the balance purchase price was to pay upon
delivery to the plaintiff.

3. The plaintiff was unable to deliver the unit of forklift on the

delivery date agreed to the defendant and encountered
negotiation with the defendant to extend the delivery date
where finally the forklift was agreed to be delivered on
12.4.2010 between the plaintiff and the defendant.

Cause(s) of action:
1. When the defendant was approached by Gazzamp Sdn.
Bhd. to sell a similar forklift for only RM 500,000 on a 6
instalment plan, the defendant immediately accepted the offer
and terminated the agreement with the plaintiff due to the
plaintiff were unable to deliver the forklift on the original
delivery date agreed which is on 22.3.2010.

2. The machinery was ready for delivery before 12.4.2010, the

revised date agreed after the negotiation was done between
the plaintiff and the defendant.

8|Page
KC08803 ETHICS ASSIGNMENT 6 SEMESTER 1 2017/2018

Application for relief

On the above basis the plaintiff seeks the following relief or
remedy:
1. The balance payment of RM 810,000 for the forklift unit
2. Rescission of the agreement
3. Aggravated damages
4. Costs
5. Such further or other reliefs the Honourable Court may
deem fit

Date: 19.4.2010

Signature: Aben Santorini

Name: Mr. Aben Santorini, an authorised officer for the
plaintiff, Syarikat Buy Anything Sdn. Bhd. Ipoh, Perak.

This document is filed by Mr. Aben Santorini, an authorised

officer for the plaintiff. The address for service of the plaintiff
is Syarikat Buy Anything Sdn. Bhd. Ipoh, Perak.

8|Page
KC08803 ETHICS ASSIGNMENT 6 SEMESTER 1 2017/2018

Question 2 (The Gullibles)

Question 2 (a)
Advise the Gullibles as to their rights in law against the Developer in this situation. (20
marks)

In this situation, it is crystal clear that the Gullibles are wronged. To be safe, the Gullibles
should have thoroughly checked the apartment before giving a word to purchase it, but
since it’s already been late, they can now use their consumer rights against the developer.
The Gullibles can voice out their unsatisfaction according to the Consumer Protection Act
1999. When faced with situations like these, we are actually protected with consumer rights
that can protect us from any unscrupulous business practices. The Ministry of Domestic
Trade, Co-Operatives and Consumerism (TTPM) allow us to make claims based on the
consumer laws if we face a problem with the goods or services that we purchase. So, the
Gullibles have the rights to make legitimate changes and claims for their shortchanged
situation.

The following are the situations related to this case where the Gullibles can lodge legal
claims in Malaysia as stated in the Tribunal for Consumer Claims:

1. For products or services that are misleading or falsely represented

2. Goods and services that do not comply to the promised safety standards
3. When the supplier makes guarantees about the quality, pricing, repair, and spare
parts that they don't comply with.
4. If the manufacturer fails to deliver guarantees made about the future availability
of goods, quality, repairs, and return of money

Page | 9
KC08803 ETHICS ASSIGNMENT 6 SEMESTER 1 2017/2018

Figure 1 Types of claims as stated in the Tribunal for Consumer Claims (The Tribunal For Consumer
Claims,2017)

1. For products or services that are misleading or falsely represented

In this situation, when they visited the booth of Promotion and Marketing
Programmes of Anything Can Sdn Bhd, the director of sales, Mr Vijaykanth and his
two assistants Encik Zulkifli and Cik Amber Boh had showed the Gullibles a rather
elaborate brochure which includes the features of a well-developed apartment, which
is a dream home for anyone. Then, the sales representatives even confirmed the
visual representations by verbal discussion. Even if this is a business tactic, it is
definitely against the law, according to Part 2 in the Consumer Protection Act 1999,
which is about the misleading and deceptive conduct, false representation and unfair
practice. Under part 2 of the Consumer Protection Act 1999, in section 9 and 10, no
person shall engage in conducts that are misleading or deceptive to the public in
terms of the nature and characteristics of the goods and services. In this case, it is
the apartment and the services the Gullibles were supposed to receive. In terms of
goods, the apartment is meant to have a park with a walking path surrounding a
lake. Instead, there are unhygienic food stalls and a bare track with overgrown grass
and plus to make it worst, it is infested with wild dogs. A total opposite of what is
‘promised’ by the brochures and the sales representatives. A promising brochure is a
good tactic to allure customers, but what they gave to the Gullibles is not even near
that. So, the Gullibles have their rights to claim for the improper goods and services
they have received.

Page | 10
KC08803 ETHICS ASSIGNMENT 6 SEMESTER 1 2017/2018

2. Goods and services that do not comply to the promised safety standards
The developer was supposed to provide the Gullibles a full around-the-clock security,
where in the actual case, it’s just 2 Bangladeshi workers who doubles up as security
guards. Even if it is cheap to hire construction workers to be the security guards, there is
no any sense of security for the residents. Just in case if anything that threatens the
safety of the residents happens, those Bangladeshi workers can never hold
responsibility, because firstly, they are not licenced security guards, and secondly they
do not belong to any organisation for the security of the apartment. Also, there are wild
dogs strolling around in the area. An enclosed secured area is not supposed to have
dangerous animals strolling around freely. This clearly does not comply with the safety
standards promised. Goods and services must comply with the safety standards set by
the ministry. Part III, Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act 1999 states that the
minister sets the standards based on recommendations and consultations with relevant
and competent agencies. According to the law, nobody is allowed to supply or advertise
any goods or services that have failed to pass the set safety standards. So, the Gullibles
have rights to have the proper safety standards in their apartment.

3. When the supplier makes guarantees about the quality, pricing, repair, and
spare parts that they don't comply with.
In this case, the developer and the sales representatives have painted a very pretty picture
of the apartment and services they offer and that is understandable, as it is part of the
marketing process. However, here, the developer made guarantees to which they cannot
live up to. Just like an empty promise, they failed to comply with their own words. This is a
part of the misleading representation by the developers and it is explained and mentioned
above, in compliance with the Consumer Protection Act 1999.

Page | 11
KC08803 ETHICS ASSIGNMENT 6 SEMESTER 1 2017/2018

4. If the manufacturer fails to deliver guarantees made about the future

availability of goods, quality, repairs, and return of money.
A manufacturer providing guarantee is basically about the seller's promise about a
certain things about the product or service, especially the availability of spare parts,
maintenance and the quality. In this case, the sellers were supposed to maintain the
common properties of the unit. But, what happened is that, the lifts are constantly out of
order. It is understandable that things can go wrong any time. But the fact here is that
the developer had failed to take appropriate actions to repair the lift even after
protestations made by the Gullibles. This complies with the Consumer Protection Act
1999 under Part 5, section 38; Manufacturer’s express guarantee.

In the Consumer Protection Act 1999, Part 6 is all about the rights against suppliers
in respect of guarantees in the supply of goods. The consumers have rights to redress
against the suppliers if the goods and services fail to comply with any of the implied
guarantees. So, the supplier or seller have to provide a remedy within a reasonable time
period, either compensate in terms of money, service or a brand new product.

For instance, a written guarantee for a piece of furniture can be, "We guarantee all
furniture against defects in construction for one year. When a structural defect is
brought to our attention, we will repair or replace it." In most cases, these guarantees
will be fulfilled and customers will get their replacements or anything promised, but if
the manufacturer fails to provide accordingly, then the customer is free to use the
guarantee as a basis for a complaint. Therefore, in this case, the Gullibles may use their
guarantee for a full maintenance as the basis for complaint for their damaged lift.

Page | 12
KC08803 ETHICS ASSIGNMENT 6 SEMESTER 1 2017/2018

Question 2 (b)
Discuss the possible remedies against the developer. (10 marks)

Our contract law in Malaysia is governed and enforced by the Contract Act 195, by which
within the act, under part 2; Misleading and deceptive conduct, false representation and
unfair practice means that any form of contract which involves "false", "misleading" or
"deceptive" in relation to conduct, representation or practice, includes conduct,
representation or practice which is capable of leading a consumer into error is deemed to be
a void contract.(In collaboration, bhd, & 2006, 2001)

Generally, Mr and Mrs Anthony Gullible can file a civil suit regarding this issue in the
Malaysian Civil Court. Apart from that, they can also file a complaint order in the Malaysian
Institute of Estate Agents (MIEA) forum. Once the complaint have been made, the lawyer
will decide on which steps Mr and Mrs Anthony Gullible can take, which is either in form of
rescission or claiming for damages.

According to (Misrepresentation Lecture, 2003-2017), there are 3 types of

misrepresentation which are fraudulent, negligent and wholly innocent. Hence, in this case,
the type of false misrepresentation involved is fraudulent misrepresentation, in which the
developers knowingly knew that they are making a false and a misleading representation
concerning the characteristics and information of the land. Thus, in this case, the remedy
against the developers would either be in form of rescission or damages.

Mr and Mrs Anthony Gullible can do a rescission of contract, whereby the procedure
involves informing the informing the representor or by requesting an order from the court.
Through rescission, all the involving parties are required to return back any benefits they
have received, and go back to their initial state, before agreeing to the contract.

Apart from that, Mr and Mrs Anthony Gullible can also claim for damages from the
developers. The damages, which can be retrieved in the form of compensation can be
obtained from the developers because they breached the contract.

Page | 13
KC08803 ETHICS ASSIGNMENT 6 SEMESTER 1 2017/2018

Question 2 (c)
Settle a statement of claim against the developer for the Gullibles based on your advice. (20
marks)

In the Kuala Lumpur High Court,

Kompleks Mahkamah Jalan Duta, 50506, Kuala Lumpur.

In the matters of deceptive acts and misrepresentation,

Between:
1. Mr Anthony Gullible
2. Mrs. Edna Gullible … (plaintiffs)

And:
1. Anything Can Sdn Bhd. …(defendants)

Statement of claim

Filed by Mr.Anthony Gullible, the plaintiff in person.

Page | 14
KC08803 ETHICS ASSIGNMENT 6 SEMESTER 1 2017/2018

The plaintiff claims:

Background to cause(s) of action:

The plaintiffs visited a marketing programme organised by the

defendant, Anything Can Sdn Bhd on 16/1/2009. In this
meeting, the representatives of the developer or defendant
were;
i. Mr.Vijaykanth Sundram
ii. Mr. Zulkifli Zain
iii. Ms. Amber Boh

The representatives of the developer assured the features

stated in the brochure during the event. The attractive
features includes;

i. A high end development that is only limited to two

apartments per floor in a total five floor project called
“Samba Heights” at Jalan Ampang, Kuala Lumpur.
ii. A park to be surrounded by the Samba Heights and a
walking path that surrounds a lake.
iii. A full around the clock security
iv. A promise of full maintenance of common property of
the units
v. A panoramic view of the Kuala Lumpur City Centre in
the background.

With the confirmation of the representatives of the developer

and much long discussion, the plaintiffs bought one unit
apartment at the price of RM 2.5 million only. Ten percent of
the purchase price was paid and the Sales and Purchase
agreement was signed by Mr and Mrs Gullible as joint
purchasers.

Page | 15
KC08803 ETHICS ASSIGNMENT 6 SEMESTER 1 2017/2018

Cause(s) of action:
Upon receiving the keys at 1/4/2010, the plaintiffs noticed
some misrepresentation of the brochures such as;

1. The clump of food stall in the surrounding areas that

affected the cleanliness of the area and the absence of
the walking path but the bare track with overgrown
grass as well as the wild dogs.
2. The promised full around the clock security was just
two Bangladeshi construction workers who doubled as
security.
3. The regular maintenance promised was not up to
expectation as the lift was regularly dysfunctional and it
remained that way even after many reports by the
plaintiff. This was especially hard on the Mrs.Gullible
who was bearing a child and lives on third floor of the
building.
4. The payment of the full purchase price was done by
the plaintiff yet feel misled and deceived by the
defendant who suffered false promises and
unnecessary hardship.

Page | 16
KC08803 ETHICS ASSIGNMENT 6 SEMESTER 1 2017/2018

Application for relief

On the above basis the plaintiff seeks the following relief or
remedy:

1. Rescission of the contract.

2. The sum of the full purchase price of RM 2.5 million
3. Claims for damaged endured by Plaintiff 2, Mrs.Gullible
for the physical hardship.
4. Aggravated damages
5. Costs
6. Such further or other reliefs the Honourable Court may
deem fit

Date: 12/14/2017

Signature: Anthony Gullible

Name: Mr. Anthony Gullible

This document is filed by the plaintiff in person. The address

for service of the plaintiff is 50, Jalan Ampang, 50540 Kuala
Lumpur.

Page | 17
KC08803 ETHICS ASSIGNMENT 6 SEMESTER 1 2017/2018

REFERENCES

1. Misrepresentation Lecture. (2003-2017). Retrieved from Law Teacher:

https://www.lawteacher.net/lecture-notes/misrepresentation-lecture.php

2. In Collaboration, BHD, P. N. M., & 2006. (2001). 1 of 50. Malaysia Comsumer

Protection Act, (August 1999), 1–50. Retrieved from
https://mystandard.kpdnkk.gov.my/mystandard_portal2014/document/akta_perlindu
nganpengguna1999.pdf

3. The Commissioner Of Law Revision, M. (2006). Act 382 Sale Of Goods Act 1957,
(January).

4. The Tribunal For Consumer Claims, (n.d.). Retrieved December 14, 2017, from
https://ttpm.kpdnkk.gov.my/portal/index.php/en/claims/type-of-claims

5. The Consumer Protection Act 1999. Retrieved from:

https://mystandard.kpdnkk.gov.my/mystandard_portal2014/document/akta_perlindu
nganpengguna1999.pdf

Page | 18
KC08803 ETHICS ASSIGNMENT 6 SEMESTER 1 2017/2018

APPENDIX

Table 1 Task Distribution

Task Distribution

Question

Question

Question

Question

Question

Question
2 (b)
1 (b)

2 (a)
1 (a)

2 (c)
1 (c)
No

Group members
1. Aneesch Preetha
2. Jashera Reddy
3. Jashvini
4. Naandini
5. Savitra Laksmi

Page | 19