NAME : NURNAZIRAH BINTI NORZILAN

MATRIC NUMBER : 2019282354

GROUP : HM1153Eb

PART A

QUESTION 2

Ezadora, a 16 years-old student dreams of becoming a famous chef. One day she went to
Hungga Baking Shoppe and was fascinated with a mixer. She entered a contract with Hungga
Baking Shoppe to buy the said mixer for RM8000. She paid with a cheque. Hungga Baking
Shoppe did not know Ezadora was 16 years old. The cheque bounced and Hungga Baking
Shoppe wishes to know whether they can take legal actions against Ezadora.

Advise Hungga Baking Shoppe according to the relevant principle of law of contract. (20 marks)
ANSWER :

The question asked to advise Hungga Baking Shoppe who wishes to sue Ezadora for breach
of contract.The issue is can Hungga Baking Shoppe sue Ezadora because she buy the mixer
for RM8000 and she paid with a cheque but the Hungga Baking Shoppe did not know Ezadora
was 16 years old. According to law of contract, offer happens when one person selected goods
and the contract happened when he/she paid the goods at the casher counter . This is provided
in Section 2(a) of the Act. Acceptance on the other hand happens when a person accords to the
proposal of someone as provided in Section 2(b).

The relevant principles of law in the situation given are Section 11 CA and the case of Nash v
Inman . Section 11 CA states that every person is competent to contract who is of the age of
majority , sound mind and not disqualified by any law which he is subject . Example can be seen
in the case of Nash v Inman . In this case , a tailor sued for the price of clothes which includes
11 fancy waistcoats supplied to the minor . The court held although the clothes were suitable in
the life of the minor , they were not necessary as he had already sufficient clothing . The
contract was void and the tailor cannot claim .

Looking at the situation given above, Ezadora was the offeror and Hungga Baking Shoppe
was the acceptor . Ezadora offered her cheque to Hungga Baking Shoppe for purchased mixer
worth RM8000 . After she paid , Hungga Baking Shoppe did not know Ezadora was 16 years
old and the cheque bounced . In this case , the contract happened when Hungga Baking
Shoppe accepted the cheque before they know Ezadora was a 16 years old . Therefore , the
contract was void when Hungga Baking Shoppe knowed Ezadora was a minor .

In conclusion, I would like to advise Hungga Baking Shoppe is not liable to sue Ezadora as
there the contract was void because of she is a minor .
PART B

QUESTION 1

On the 5th of January 2021, En Haizi took his family to Goldclove Hotel for dinner to celebrate
his daughter, Diyana’s, fifteenth birthday. They went to the Italian Restaurant at the hotel as
Diyana loves Italian food.

Diyana has a serious allergy to peanuts and has to take precautions not to eat any food
containing even a small amount of peanuts. Due to this, En Haizi asked for the head waiter and
specifically told him about Diyana’s allergy. En Haizi instructed him to make sure that the food
served to his family would not contain any peanuts. The head waiter assured En Haizi that he
would personally inform the chef of Diyana’s allergy.

After enjoying a delicious Italian dinner, Diyana cut her birthday cake which was ordered from
the hotel. Unfortunately, the cake served to Diyana contained some peanut oil which the chef
had forgotten about. Within ten minutes of eating the cake, Diyana’s face started to swell and
she had difficulty breathing. She then collapsed to the floor of the restaurant. An ambulance
was called and Diyana was rushed to a nearby hospital. At the hospital, Diyana was given
emergency treatment and was required to stay there for two days. Fortunately, Diyana made a
full recovery but the hospital bill came up to RM5,000.

En. Haizi is extremely upset with what had happened to Diyana and wishes to sue Goldclove
Hotel for negligence. Advise En Haizi.

(20 marks)
ANSWER :

The question asked to advise En.Haizi if he can take legal action against Goldclove Hotel .
The issue in this case is Diyana’s face started to swell and she had difficulty breathing. She
then collapsed to the floor of the restaurant . Can Encik Haizi sue Goldclove Hotel for
negligence ? .

Before a person can sue for negligence, there are several principles need to be observed.
Negligence is defined under the law as carelessness that cause harm to another person.
Negligence is coupled with 3 basic elements, which are duty of care, breach of duty to take
care, and damages.

The first element is the defendant must owe duty of care towards the plaintiff. The concept of
duty of care is basically the defendant is under an obligation to be careful towards the plaintiff.
Who are the possible plaintiffs in defendant’s case? The case of Donoghue v Stevenson
illustrates this when the court, in determining the defendant owed duty of care towards the
plaintiff established a “neighbour principle”. Neighbour is someone who was closely and directly
affected by the defendant’s action. What happened in the case of Donoghue v tevenson was
that, Mrs Donoghue was treated by her friend to a ginger beer. The ginger beer was contained
in an opaque bottle such that one cannot see the content. She drank half of the bottle and when
she poured another half of the bottle, there was a decomposed snail floated on top of her glass.
She suffered shocked and stomach ailment as a result. Mrs Donoghue sued.The court held that,
the manufacturer owed a duty of care towards the consumer who consumed its product, and in
this case, it was Mrs Donoghue. By consuming the product, Mrs Donoghue became the
neighbour to the manufacturer even though she did not purchase the ginger beer.

Here, En. Haizi and his family went to Goldclove Hotel to eat and celebrate his daughter’s
birthday , Diyana . En. Haizi and family were the customers of Goldclove Hotel and thus the
“consumer” of Goldclove Hotel services. En. Haizi and family were Goldclove Hotel neighbours
and therefore Goldclove Hotel owed duty of care towards both of them.
 The second element is having owed the duty of care towards the plaintiff, the defendant
breach that duty of care. Whether a defendant breaches his duty of care depends on the
“reasonable man test”. The question is that, would a reasonable man do what the defendant
had done if the reasonable man faces the same situation? If the answer is YES, the defendant
does not breach his duty. But if the answer is NO, the defendant breaches his duty.

In En. Haizi situation, the question is, would other restaurant do what Goldclove Hotel had
done, that is preparing unsafe food to the customers? The answer is NO. Other restaurant
would have observed the safety and hygiene requirements in their food preparations.So here,
Goldclove Hotel can be said to breach the duty of care towards En.Haizi and his family .

The last element is damages suffered by the plaintiff as a result of defendant’s breach of
duty. The test to determine whether the injury suffered by the plaintiff resulting from defendant’s
breach of duty is “foreseeability test”. The question is could we foresee that the defendant’s
action might cause injury towards the plaintiff? If the answer is YES, there is foreseeability
connection between defendant’s action and plaintiff’s injury, and thus, the defendant will be
liable for negligence.

Looking at the facts given, the damages suffered by En.Haizan daughter Diyana was suffering
from face started to swell and she had difficulty breathing. She then collapsed to the floor of the
restaurant . Diyana was given emergency treatment and was required to stay there for two
days. Fortunately, Diyana made a full recovery but the hospital bill came up to RM5,000 .
Diyana would not have the possibility of suffering from food allergy if Goldenclove Hotel served
food that not contain a peanut . So, it can be said that the defendant’s action passed the
foreseeability test, therefore Goldenclove Hotel was liable for negligence.

In conclusion, En. Haizi can sue Goldenclove Hotel for negligence.