CIVIL LAW ACT

:

Agency

Civil Law Act - Agency - Del credere agency - Law of England applicable - Civil Law Ordinance 1956, s 5(1)

JM Wotherspoon & Co Ltd v Henry Agency House [1962] MLJ 86, High Court, Kuala Lumpur

In this case, the plaintiff, JM Wotherspoon & Co Ltd, was a firm of merchants in Scotland. The defendant, Henry Agency House, was a firm of agents in Kuala Lumpur. The plaintiff appointed the defendant as its del credere agent to sell a consignment of goods in Malaysia. The defendant sold the goods to the third party, but the third party failed to pay for them. The plaintiff sued the defendant for the unpaid amount.

The defendant argued that it was not liable for the unpaid amount because it had not been given a del credere commission. However, the court held that the defendant was liable as a del credere agent even though it had not been given a commission. The court held that the law of England applied to the agency contract because the contract was made in England and the defendant was an English company. The law of England recognizes the concept of del credere agency, and the court held that the defendant was therefore liable for the unpaid amount.





Application

Civil Law Act - Application - Banks and banking business - Chose in action — Transfer of assets - Transfer of assets and liabilities of transferor’s banking business in Malaysia to transferee plaintiff - Transfer made pursuant to vesting order made under s 50 of Banking and Financial Institutions Act 1989 - Whether transferor and transferee plaintiff should have recourse to s 4(3) of the Civil Law Act 1956 to transfer assets and liabilities of transferor’s banking business - Whether circumstances stated in s 4(3) of the Civil Law Act 1956 to be construed as being restricted in its application to an absolute assignment only - Whether s 4(3) of the Civil Law Act 1956 capable of being resorted to for reconstructing financial institutions pursuant to ss 49 and 50 of the Banking and Financial Institutions Act 1989

Standard Chartered Bank Malaysia Bhd v Eden Enterprises (M) Bhd [2003] 3 MLJ 81

In this case, the plaintiff, Standard Chartered Bank Malaysia Bhd, was a bank. The defendant, Eden Enterprises (M) Bhd, was a company. The plaintiff had lent money to the defendant, and the defendant had given the plaintiff a security over its assets. The defendant defaulted on the loan, and the plaintiff sought to enforce the security.

The defendant argued that the plaintiff could not enforce the security because the defendant had entered into a restructuring agreement with its creditors. The restructuring agreement provided that the defendant's assets could not be used to satisfy the plaintiff's claim.

The plaintiff argued that the restructuring agreement was invalid because it was contrary to the law. The plaintiff argued that the Civil Law Act 1956 (CLA) applied to the restructuring agreement, and that the CLA prohibited the assignment of chose in action. The plaintiff argued that the restructuring agreement was an assignment of chose in action, and that it was therefore invalid.

The court held that the CLA did apply to the restructuring agreement. However, the court held that the restructuring agreement was not an assignment of chose in action. The court held that the restructuring agreement was a contract between the defendant and its creditors, and that it did not involve the transfer of any rights from the defendant to its creditors.

The court therefore held that the restructuring agreement was valid, and that the plaintiff could not enforce the security.





Civil Law Act - Application - Civil Law Ordinance 1956, s 3

Bagher Singh v Chanan Singh [1961] MLJ 328, Court of Appeal, Ipoh

In this case, the plaintiff, Bagher Singh, was a Sikh. The defendant, Chanan Singh, was also a Sikh. The plaintiff and the defendant were brothers. The plaintiff sued the defendant for the partition of their properties.

The defendant argued that the Civil Law Act 1956 (CLA) did not apply to the partition of their properties because they were both Sikhs. The defendant argued that the law of the Sikh community applied to the partition of their properties.

The court held that the CLA did apply to the partition of their properties. The court held that the CLA was a general law that applied to all persons in Malaysia, regardless of their race or religion. The court held that the law of the Sikh community was a special law that applied only to Sikhs, and that it could not be used to override the general law of the land.