I also support this problem with another case Dean v MacDowell.

The plaintiff’s claim is based

upon the ground that the reconstruction scheme grew out of the negotiations which were going on in
Spain; that it was a means for obtaining orders; that Mr. Benham made use of information obtained by
him as a member of the firm of H Clarkson & Co; that he made use of his connection with it; that he
used the name of the firm and represented it as reconstructing the Barrow Co., and that his partner
were entitled to take him at his word and treat him as acting for and on behalf of the firm throughout
this business.Reliance is placed by the counsel of the firm on the judgement of Lord Justice Cotton in
Dean v MacDowell (1978) 8 Ch D 345.The answer, however, to this claim is short and conclusive.It was
no part of business of H Clarkson & Co. to promote or reconstruct companies, nor to advise them how
to improve the management of them.All such matters were quite foreign to the business of H Clarkson
& Co. . Moreover, notwithstanding the expression used in the letters to which reference was made, it is
quite clear that the name of the firm was never in fact used for reconstructing the Barrow Co. or for
forming the Naval Construction Co, and that the plaintiffs never authorized Mr Benham to act for the
firm in any such matters , and never, in fact, agreed to extend the business of the firm so as to include
the bringing out of any company.He was never in fact acting for his firm in this matter, nor did his
partners ever suppose he was, or treating him as so acting.Nor is it true in fact that Mr Benham or the
company for which he was acting ever derived any benefit from his connection with the firm of H
Clarkson & Co.It is clear law that every partner must account to the firm for every benefit derived by him
without the consent of his co-partners from any transaction concerning the partnership or from any use
by him of the partnership property, name, or business connection; but the facts of this case do not bring
it within this principle.It is equally clear law that if a partner without the consent of his co-partners
carries on business of the same nature as, and competing with that of the firm, he must account for and
pay over to the firm all profits made by him in that business, but the facts of this case do not bring it
within this principle.Dean v MacDowell shows that a partner is not bound to account to his co-partners
for profits made by him in carrying on a separate business of his own, unless the case can be brought
within one or other of the two principles to which I have alluded, even if he carries on sech separate
business contrary to one of the partnership articles.As regards the use by a partner of information
obtained by him in the course of the transaction of partnership business , or by reason of his connection
with the firm, the principle is that if he avails himself of it for any purpose which is within the scope of
the partnership business, or of any competing business, the profits of which belong to the firm, he must
account to the firm for any benefits which he may have derived from such information, but there is no
principle or authority which entitles a firm to benefits derived by a partner for the use of informationfor
purposes which are wholly without the scope of the firm’s business, nor does the language of Lord
Justice Cotton in Dean v MacDowell warrant any such notion.By “information which the partnership is
entitled to” is meant information which vcan be used for the purposesof the partnership.It is not the
source of the onformation, but the use to which it is applied, which is important in such matters.To hold
that a partner can never derive any personal benefit from information which he obtains as a partner
would be manifestly absurd.Suppose a partner to become, in the course of carrying on his business, well
acquainted with a particular branch of science or trade, and suppose him to write and publish a book on
the subject, could the firm claim the profits thereby obtained?Obviously not, unless, by publishing the
book, he in fact competed with the firm in their own line of business. For these reasons, the claim of the
firm to the money received by Mr Benham for reconstructing the Barrow Co and forming the Naval
Construction Co must be disallowed.
As a coclusion, Ahmad and Baba is entitled for the salary of RM3000 per month for the managing the
firm’s business. This is because it was stated that Ahmad and Baba is salaried partner. However, Ahmad
cannot bring his son Ali as a new partner into the partnership business. Moreover, Chong cannot
expel Ahmad and Baba from the partnership because there is no stated in the agreement. Baba
should not account and pay to the firm all profit made by him at the restaurant because
Restaurant Nasi Ulam is outside the scope of the partnership business which is of car
equipment.