Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 626 views

    Law Assignment

    Uploaded by

    Liyaana Ahmad
    Ragaraju was asked to deliver 5000 chickens to Singapore by the next morning but was prohibited from entering at the border due to SARS concerns. Fearing the chickens would die without food, Ragaraju sold them at a local market in Johor Bahru. Chin Seng was angry with this action. The document analyzes whether Ragaraju would be liable under the law of agency by necessity. It finds the conditions were not met - Ragaraju could have contacted Chin Seng and failed to do so, meaning his actions do not qualify him as an agent of necessity and he would be liable.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Law Assignment

    Uploaded by

    Liyaana Ahmad
    626 views14 pages
    Ragaraju was asked to deliver 5000 chickens to Singapore by the next morning but was prohibited from entering at the border due to SARS concerns. Fearing the chickens would die without food, Ragaraju sold them at a local market in Johor Bahru. Chin Seng was angry with this action. The document analyzes whether Ragaraju would be liable under the law of agency by necessity. It finds the conditions were not met - Ragaraju could have contacted Chin Seng and failed to do so, meaning his actions do not qualify him as an agent of necessity and he would be liable.

    Original Description:

    question

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Ragaraju was asked to deliver 5000 chickens to Singapore by the next morning but was prohibited from entering at the border due to SARS concerns. Fearing the chickens would die without food, Ragaraju sold them at a local market in Johor Bahru. Chin Seng was angry with this action. The document analyzes whether Ragaraju would be liable under the law of agency by necessity. It finds the conditions were not met - Ragaraju could have contacted Chin Seng and failed to do so, meaning his actions do not qualify him as an agent of necessity and he would be liable.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    626 views14 pages

    Law Assignment

    Uploaded by

    Liyaana Ahmad
    Ragaraju was asked to deliver 5000 chickens to Singapore by the next morning but was prohibited from entering at the border due to SARS concerns. Fearing the chickens would die without food, Ragaraju sold them at a local market in Johor Bahru. Chin Seng was angry with this action. The document analyzes whether Ragaraju would be liable under the law of agency by necessity. It finds the conditions were not met - Ragaraju could have contacted Chin Seng and failed to do so, meaning his actions do not qualify him as an agent of necessity and he would be liable.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 14

    PREPARED BY

    LIYAANA BINTI AHMAD


    MUNIZZAH BIN AHMAD
    NABILA SYAZWANI BINTI ROSLI

    QUESTION
    Ragaraju is a lorry driver working with
    Chin Seng. One day he was asked to
    deliver 5000 chickens to Singapore
    before 10.00 am the next morning. He
    arrived at the Malaysian-Singapore
    border around 7.00 am that morning but
    his lorry was not allowed to enter
    Singapore. Ragaraju was told that all
    chickens from Malaysia are prohibited by
    Singapore government for fear of SARS

    Ragaraju decided to sell all the


    chickens at Pasar Tani in Johor
    Bharu as he afraid all the chickens
    might die as they have not been
    fed since last night. Chin Seng
    later found out Ragarajus action
    and he is very mad. Advise Chin
    Seng whether Ragaraju is liable to
    him

    ISSUES

    Whether Ragaraju is liable to


    his action or not.

    Theories of Law
    Section 142 By Necessity
    In commercial-when a person is entrusted
    with anothers property and it becomes
    necessary to act to preserve that property
    although he has no authority to do so.

    -cases

    Great Northern Railway v Swaffield


    The railway co. carried dfs horses to its
    destination. On arrival there was no one
    to meet since the stationmaster did not
    know the dfs address, he instructed that
    the horse to be put in a stable. Later , the
    railways co claimed for the charges for
    the stable from the df refuse to pay.
    Pf (railways co.) had acted as agent of
    necessity in this matter. The horse
    needed to be keep safe in the stable.
    Therefore their claim was successful.

    3 condition
    1. It is impossible for the agent to get
    the principals instruction
    -cases Springer v Great Western
    Railway Co.
    Defendant agreed to carry of a
    tomatoes to Convant Garden Market.
    Dfs employees were on strike so they
    unloaded the tomatoes. Some of
    tomatoes were found bad.

    The defendant then decided to sell the


    tomatoes locally because they believe that
    the tomatoes were not in saleable condition
    when arrived at the Convent Garden market.
    However they do not tell the plaintiff about
    their decision. Then the plaintiff claimed
    damages based on market price of the
    tomatoes in Convent Garden market.
    The plaintiff was entitled to damages
    because the defendant were not agent of
    necessity. This is because they failed to
    communicate with the plaintifff when they
    could have done so.

    The agents action is necessary,


    in the circumstances, to prevent
    loss to the principal with respect
    to the good committed to his
    charge-only if urgency exists.
    2.

    3. The agent of necessity has


    acted in good faith.

    Application
    By applying section 142 , Ragaraju is a
    person who is entrusted or responsibility
    to deliver the 5000 chicken to Singapore
    that owned by Chin Seng . However
    Ragaraju decided to sell all the chickens
    at Pasar Tani in Johor Baharu because to
    avoid from the chicken might die as it
    have not been fed since last night, even
    he know he not have authority.
    -

    The decision in Great Northern


    Railways v Swaffields case , stated
    that plaintiff acted as agent of
    necessity because of plaintiff have
    necessary to act to preserve that
    horse even though plaintiff has no
    authority to do so. Therefore in
    Ragarajus situation , it becomes
    necessary to sell the chickens at
    pasar tani to prevent lose.

    Condition 1
    There is no impossible to Ragaraju to
    get the principals instruction
    Cases
    The decisions in Springer v Great
    Western Railway co. cases states that
    the plaintiff was entitled to damages
    because the defendant were not agent
    of necessity. Defendant was failed to
    communicate with the plaintiff when
    they could have done so. In Ragaraju
    situations , he is not agent of
    necessity
    and
    he
    is
    fail
    to

    Condition 2
    Ragarajus action is necessary to
    prevent Chin Seng loss. So he
    decide to sell all the chicken at
    pasar tani.
    Condition 3
    Ragaraju has acted in good faith
    because he afraid all the chicken
    might die if he not sell the chicken

    Conclusion
    No, Ragaraju is not liable to
    his action

    You might also like