Monday, May 28, 2012
Sunday, February 26, 2012
BUS 201 GBP 30%
BUS201
Contract & Agency Law
Assignment 2 – Group-based Assignment
January 2012 Presentation
BUS201 Assignment 2
Group-based Assignment
This assignment is worth 30% of the final mark for BUS201 Contract & Agency Law.
The cut-off date for this assignment is 26 Feb 2012, 2359hrs.
This is a group-based assignment. You should form a group of 3 members from your seminar group. Each group is required to upload a single report to MyUniSIM via your respective seminar group. Please elect a group leader. The responsibility of the group leader is to upload the report on behalf of the group.
It is important for each group member to contribute substantially to the final submitted work. All group members are equally responsible for the entire submitted assignment. If you feel that the work distribution is inequitable to either yourself or your group mates, please highlight this to your instructor as soon as possible. Your instructor will then investigate and decide on any action that needs to be taken. It is not necessary for all group members to be awarded the same mark.
___________________________________________________________________________
Question 1
In April 2009, Judy and Pauline visited Relax Spa and were coaxed to take up pre-paid packages. Judy signed up for a $5000 package and paid it in cash. Pauline, a regular spa visitor, signed up for a more expensive package and pre-paid $12,000. Unfortunately, before Judy or Pauline could use any of their pre-paid packages, Relax Spa closed suddenly. After several weeks of failed attempts to contact owners of Relax Spa, Judy and Pauline decided to take legal action. However they are concerned with legal expenses that they may have to incur. Advise Judy and Pauline the options they have in respect of the dispute resolution process with Relax Spa.
(20 marks)
Question 2
Dan owns a 25 years old antique car and decides to sell it for $120,000. Fred, a car collector, viewed the car and decided to buy it immediately. As they were entering into a Sales and Purchase agreement, Dan said, “Please pay attention to some of the exemption clauses that I have listed in the contract.” Fred replied, “I believe it is the same old clauses in any contracts. Since I did not bring my reading glasses and I can’t read well, I trust that all is in order.” Subsequently, Fred signed on all the 3 pages of the contract prepared by Dan.
After the purchase of the antique car, Fred discovered that the vehicle was not able to move beyond a certain speed (60km/ hour). Also, the internal components of the car’s engine were almost falling apart. Fred felt that the terms of the contract were unfair and argued that the
contract should be rendered void. Dan counter-argued that all the problems with the car were listed explicitly in the exemption clauses.
Advise Fred.
(30 marks)
Question 3
(a) On 1st May, Valerie sent Bonnie an email offering to sell her a car for $40,000. To ensure that Bonnie received the offer email, she sent her a letter stating similar contents - $40,000 for the sale of the car. On the 9th May, Valerie changed her mind about selling the car. She sent out an email to Bonnie to revoke the original offer. She also sent a letter of revocation. Unfortunately, the letter was lost in transit.
All this while unknown to Valerie, Bonnie was away on vacation. Bonnie had not been to the office and was unable to check her emails. When Bonnie returned home on 10th May, she saw the letter of offer from Valerie. Having the intention to buy a car, Bonnie accepted the offer and mailed her reply to Valerie in a letter.
2 days later, Bonnie returned to her workplace. Before checking any of her emails, she emailed Valerie to re-confirm her acceptance of Valerie’s offer of the car. By the end of the day, Bonnie managed to read both the emails of offer and the revocation that Valerie sent.
Advise Bonnie.
(20 marks)
b) Joshua, a rich businessman, decides to start a chain of small businesses. He engages Albert and Betty to be his business partners. For his first business venture, Joshua contracted Albert, a 17 years old polytechnic student, to venture into graphic design works. It was decided that Joshua would provide business contacts while Albert will focus on the actual projects. Based on a profit sharing scheme, Albert will get 50% of all the project works that Joshua brings in. 3 months later, Albert decided to ask for his share of payment estimated at about $300. Joshua claims that he is not legally liable to pay Albert as their contract is deemed to be void because of Albert’s incapacity.
Betty was working as a casino croupier with Resorts World Singapore when she first met Joshua. Sensing that there is money to be made in the gaming industry, Joshua encouraged Betty to quit her full-time job and enter into a partnership with him. Over the next few months, Betty and Joshua crafted an elaborate gaming scheme known as “3D.” They even registered themselves with ACRA as a formal partnership, specializing in “entertainment businesses.” Before the licence was approved, Betty was able to collect about $4000 worth of bets from her old casino clientele for their “3D” gaming scheme. Subsequently, it was discovered that ACRA has refused to grant them an entertainment licence and their “3D” gaming scheme was deemed to be illegal. With the $4000 at hand, Joshua called Betty for a spilt of his share. Betty refused, claiming that there was never a partnership and she is entitled to keep the entire share of the $4000.
Advise Albert and Betty.
(30 marks)
---- END OF ASSIGNMENT ----
Question 1
Advise Judy and Pauline the options they have in respect of the dispute resolution process with Relax Spa.
(20 Marks)
Introduction
The issue that Judy and Pauline facing is that they made a prepayment of S$5,000 and S$12,000 respectively to Relax Spa for the Spa packages. However, Relax Spa closed down before Judy and Pauline could use any of the services.
They are planning to seek resolution by taking legal actions on Relax Spa. However, they are concerned of the legal fee involved if the case is taken to the Court.
Issues
In order to make feasible alternatives for Judy and Pauline to consider, we need to examine and consider the followings:
1. Whether Relax Spa has breach the contract with Judy and Pauline.
2. Whether Judy and Pauline could file a dispute to the Court.
Rules
1. Whether Relax Spa has breach the contract with Judy and Pauline.
When a contract has formed, it must be discharged. The four main methods that a contract can be discharged are by performing, breaching, agreeing and frustrating.
Discharged by performing, means that the parties perform their obligations as stated in the contract and once is fulfilled, the contract ends
Discharged by breach of contract, means that one party fails to perform all his commitment stated in the contract
Discharged by agreement, means that the parties involved in a disputes negotiate and come to a certain terms that will supersede the previous agreement
Discharged by frustration, refers to the situation whereby a supervening event occurs which parties involved are not responsible and resulting to the basis of the contract to be terminated.
2. Whether Judy and Pauline could file a dispute to the Court.
The nature and the amount of the claim will determine which Court the claim should be filed with. In this case, the three Courts that handle civil matters are the District Court, in which handles claims dispute amount not exceeding S$250,000; the Magistrate Court, in which handles claims dispute amount not exceeding S$60,000; and the Small Claim Tribunal, in which handles claims dispute amount not exceeding $10,000 (or up to $20,000 where both parties to the dispute agree) which arises from a dispute regarding a contract for the sale of goods or the provision of services or in tort, where there is damage caused to any property, except damage sustained in an accident arising out of or in connection with the use of a motor vehicle.
The amount of claims filed by Judy and Pauline is S$17,000 (S$5,000 and S$12,000 respectively)
Application of Law to facts
1. Whether Relax Spa has breach the contract with Judy and Pauline.
In this case, Relax Spa, the promisor, has breached the contract with Judy and Pauline, the promisee, by not providing the services in the spa packages that has been promised upon Judy and Pauline.
On the other hand, Judy and Pauline, the promisor, paid S$5,000 and S$12,000 respectively to Relax Spa, the promisee, as prepayment for the spa package.
In addition, being a commercial agreement, there was an intention to create legal relations.
2. Whether Judy and Pauline could file a dispute to the Court.
In this case, Judy and Pauline could start a civil action at the Magistrate Court against Relax Spa because the disputed amount is S$17,000.
Alternatively, Judy and Pauline could file a claim to the Small Claim Tribunal against Relax Spa. This offers a faster and cheaper way to settle the dispute. However, as the amount involved is more than S$10,000, both the claimant and the respondent have to sign a memorandum in order to raise the jurisdiction to S$20,000.
There other dispute resolution methods such as mediation through the Singapore Mediation Centre and arbitration through the Singapore International Arbitration Centre.
Judy and Pauline could present their case to Singapore Mediation Centre under the Small Case Commercial Mediation Scheme (SCCMS) to seek their assistance. The advantages of going through mediation centre are faster settlement and cheaper as compare to file a dispute with the Court.
Judy and Pauline could also appoint an arbitrator to resolve their dispute with Relax Spa outside the Court. An arbitrator is a neutral party appointed by the party involved in the dispute and is often the subject matter expert to the nature of the dispute. The advantages of going through this are; is a faster process and the dispute is handled in private. However, the cost incurred will not be cheap.
Conclusion
Having established that there is a breach of contract by Relax Spa, Judy and Pauline could file a claim against Relax Spa. As Judy and Pauline is concerned of cost that will be incurred from the legal action, it is recommended that Judy and Pauline take their legal action through the Small Claim Tribunal or seek an out of court settlement through the Singapore Mediation Centre.
Question 2
Advise Fred if the contract with Dan over a purchase of a car can be rendered void.
(30 Marks)
Introduction
Fred a car collector bought a 25 year old car from Dan, and found out later that the car was not in good working condition. Fred wants to void the contract but Dan had already stated all the issues which the car had in the contract, and advised Fred to read through before signing. However Fred didn’t bring his spectacles and couldn’t see clearly, and assumed that the clause on the contract is the same as the other contracts that he had before and signed the contract without reading.
Issues
Fred wants to void the contract after he realized that the car he bought was not in good working condition. The following are issues to evaluate:
1. Whether the exemption clause in the contract had an legal effect
2. Whether the contract is voidable under the circumstances of Misrepresentation
3. Whether what Dan said before Fred signed the contract had any legal implication
Rules and Application of law to facts
1. Whether the exemption clause in the contract had any legal effect
When Dan and Fred were entering into sales and purchase agreement, Dan advised Fred to look through the contract’s exemption clauses before signing. However, when Fred mentioned that he couldn’t read as he didn’t bring his spectacles, Dan did fulfill the adequacy of notice to Fred, as he did not help Fred to understand or verify any doubts he had with the exemption clauses, before letting Fred sign. Fred later found out that the car’s internal engines were nearly falling apart and this problem could threaten Fred’s safety as a driver. The case of Jet Holding & Others v Cooper Cameron (Singapore) Pte Ltd & Another (2005) supports that clauses in the contract should be fairly and reasonably made known to the plaintiff’s attention.
Under the Main Purpose Rule, it states that the exemption clause cannot over throw the intended purpose of the contract. The main purpose of Fred buying the car is to use it to drive. However due to the defects that he later found out, it deprives him the main function as the engines of the car is close to spoiling. The car is below merchantable quality as it is not of safety and durability standards.
We can see that when Dan was constructing the contract, his terms were different from the other car contracts that Fred had before. We can see that the exemption clauses that Dan placed in had given him more protection compared to Fred. As the 3 pages contract did not state any refund or warranty policy of the car, nor did he let Fred test drive the car before buying.
There was insufficient time given to Fred to get his spectacles read through the exemption clauses on the contract before signing. The case of Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking 1971 supports that sufficient time to get his spectacles so that he is able to read the clause should be given to Fred, as the case states that he signed right after he told Dan he couldn’t see.
2. Whether the contract is voidable under the circumstances of Misrepresentation
Under section 2 Misrepresentation act, if a party had a misrepresentation before signing the contract, and it caused him to be at a disadvantage, the person causing the misrepresentation is held liable for damages to the other party even if the misrepresentation was not a fraud. Even though Fred couldn’t read without his spectacles, Dan just remained silent. He did not advise Fred to check the car’s engine or do a test drive to check the car’s speed before signing the contract. Fred has a misconception that the car was in good working condition and exemption clauses were the same as the ones he came across before. Fred only found out after purchasing that the car was in bad shape. This is a case which Fred had negligent misrepresentation before signing the contract, therefore contract voidable and Dan liable for the damages caused on Fred.
3. Whether what Dan said before Fred signed the contract had any legal implication
The sentence that Dan made was a representation and could not be considered a contract term, as Fred was asked to read the exemption clause to verify any doubts that he had before signing.
Under section 2 Theft Act (1968), it states that if there is an undermining factor but due to mutual mistake, it is not dishonest. However, if a material fact is intentionally misrepresented leading to consent, but not brought to the party’s attention, it is dishonest. In which in the case, Dan remaining silence when he knew Fred couldn’t read the contract, contributed to Fred’s misconception of the exemption clause. Thus, he signed the contract without knowing the full truth of the car’s condition. Dan action to remain silent is suspicious of dishonesty to cover up the truth. To add on, being the previous owner and the party who drafted the contract he is definitely aware of the flaws of the car’s condition.
Conclusion
The car contract made between the seller Dan and buyer Fred is voidable as the contract is not fair to Fred. Before Fred signed the contract there was negligence misrepresentation as he assumed that the car contract is the same as the past contracts he had. He only found out about the problem after he purchased it, and on Dan’s part, he did not explain the exemption clauses nor give Fred adequate notice to read through the 3 page contract. The contract did not fulfill the main purpose of the car as it was going to spoil and could threaten the safety of the driver.
The contract is not reasonable as it is constructed to the benefit of Dan and he showed suspicious acts of dishonesty by not clarifying the car problems with Fred. Dan insisted that the contract is enforceable when Fred wanted to void it shooting at the point that Fred didn’t read the exemption clauses before signing the contract.
In whole, once the contract is done Dan will receive $120, 000 in exchange for his 25 year old antique car, but what Fred got in exchange was a spoilt car and he had to spend money to repair it to a condition that is safe to drive with. The whole situation is beneficial to only one party, Dan. Therefore Fred is advised to either void the contract or claim damages from Dan.
Question 3(a)
Advise Bonnie.
(20 Marks)
Introduction
Valerie is making an offer to sell her car to Bonnie at the price of $40,000. Valerie sent an email and a letter on the 1st May to Bonnie offering the sale of the car. However, Valerie changed her mind and revoked the offer by emailing and also sending a letter of revocation to Bonnie on 9th May. Unknown to Valerie was that Bonnie was out of on vacation.
Bonnie returned on the 10th May and saw the letter of offer from Valerie. Bonnie with the intention of buying the car, mailed Valerie a letter of acceptance. Before checking her email, she reaffirms her acceptance by sending an email to Valerie about the acceptance. She only saw the email on the offer and revocation at the end of the day.
Issues
In order to advise Bonnie, we need to consider the following:
1. Whether is there a binding agreement between Valerie and Bonnie
2. Whether do they agreed to the use of postal acceptance rule
3. Whether is the letter of revocation valid when Bonnie received it
Rules
1. Whether is there a binding agreement between Valerie and Bonnie
For a contract to start there must be an offer and an acceptance communicated between the offeror and offeree
The offeror and offeree n this case is Valerie and Bonnie respectively.
An offer is an expression made by one party (“offeror”) to another party (“offeree”) communicating the offeror’s willingness to perform a promise.
The offer is only valid when there is communication between the two parties (offeror and offeree).
Acceptance is an unconditional expression of assent of concurrence to the terms of the offer.
The general rule is that the acceptance must be received by the offeror
2. Whether do they agreed to the use of postal acceptance rule
The general rule is that the acceptance must be received by the offeror. However, there are exceptional situation to consider. For this case, the postal acceptance rule is the exception.
This rule states that a written acceptance sent by ordinary post is effective once it is posted by the offeree, regardless whether it reaches the offeror or is totally misdirected and lost. One consideration to this rule is that the parties involved must agreed to its use or is reasonable to use the post.
3. Whether is the letter of revocation valid when Bonnie received it
Revocation occurs when the offeror withdraws the offer before the acceptance is made by the offeree. Revocation also can be done even there is an option to the favour of the offeree.
Application of Law to facts
1. Whether is there a binding agreement between Valerie and Bonnie
Valerie made an offer to Bonnie for the sale of her car at $40,000 on the 1st May by sending her an email and a letter. In this case, we could see that Valerie is the offeror and Bonnie is the offeree receiving the offer.
On the 10th May, Bonnie saw the letter of offer and having the intention to buy a car, accepted Valerie’s offer and mailed the letter of acceptance to Valerie. Bonnie’s acceptance is valid since she unconditionally accepted it.
From here, we could observe that there is a meeting of the mind that Valerie’s offer for the sale of her car to Bonnie at $40,000 is accepted by Bonnie with the intent of buying a car.
2. Whether do they agreed to the use of postal acceptance rule
In this case, Valerie and Bonnie did not agreed to the use of the postal acceptance rule beforehand, it is also clear that both Valerie and Bonnie do not intend to use it.
The intention is clear when Valerie sent a letter of offer together with an email to Bonnie and Bonnie sent a letter of acceptance but send an email to re-confirm the acceptance. These show that both Valerie and Bonnie indicated an implied condition that prompt acceptance was required and thus overrides the postal acceptance rule. In this situation, general rule applies and acceptance occurs when the posted letter is actually received.
3. Whether is the letter of revocation valid when Bonnie accessed it
In this case, the letter of revocation and an email copy of the letter were sent by Valerie on the 9th May. The letter of revocation was lost in transit and since the postal acceptance rule does not applies. This letter will be deemed invalid.
On the other hand, unknown to Valerie was that Bonnie, who is out of town and could not access her email till the 12th May, could not retrieve the email that was sent on 9th May until the end of 12th May. Thus, the time of receipt of the revocation is 12th May.
Conclusion
In conclusion, we can advise Bonnie that the Valerie’s letter of revocation is dated 12th May which is the email copy is valid.
In this case, Bonnie’s letter of acceptance to Valerie sent on the 10th May will not be invalid as she implied that prompt acceptance was required and the general rule applies whereby the letter has to be reached Valerie in order to be valid.
Since Valerie till this point has not indicated she received the letter of acceptance, the letter of revocation takes priority. Hence, the offer that Valerie put up has been revoked on the 12th May.
Question 3(b)
Advise Albert and Betty on the options that they have with regards to the dispute with Joshua.
Introduction
1. Albert is a 17 years old polytechnic student who is contracted by Joshua to work for him. Based on profit sharing scheme, Albert is to received 50% of the project works that Joshua bring in. 3 months later, when Albert decided to ask for his share of profit, which is estimated to be at $300, Joshua claims that he is not legally liable to pay Albert as their contract is deemed to be void because of Albert’s incapacity.
2. Betty was working as a casino croupier with Resort World Singapore when she first met Joshua. Joshua encouraged Betty to quit her full-time job and enter into a partnership with him. Over the next few months, Betty and Joshua crafted an elaborate gaming scheme known as “3D.” They even registered themselves with ACRA as a formal partnership, specializing in “entertainment businesses.” Before the licence was approved, Betty was able to collect about $4000 worth of bets from her old casino clientele for their “3D” gaming scheme. Subsequently, it was discovered that ACRA has refused to grant them an entertainment licence and their “3D” gaming scheme was deemed to be illegal. With the $4000 at hand, Joshua called Betty for a spilt of his share. Betty refused, claiming that there was never a partnership and she is entitled to keep the entire share of the $4000.
Issues
1. Albert’s Case
The issue in Albert’s case is to determine if Albert has the capacity to form a valid contract. If not, then we will have to determine if the contract between Albert and Joshua is valid. Also, we are to determine if Joshua had committed any offence.
2. Betty’s Case
The issue in Betty’s case is to determine if the contract is still valid since the activities are deemed to be illegal and if Betty is liable to share the $4000 with Joshua. Also, there might be a consideration that the activities they had done could be criminal offences and face further law suit.
Rules and Application of Law to facts
1. Albert’s Case
Incapacity of Albert:
Incapacity refers to the lack of capacity which may characterise a contracting party and the most significant category of persons who lack capacity is called “minors”. Minors are person who have not reached the age of majority. The common law age of majority is 21 years old. However, in January 2009 enactment of the Civil Law (Amendment) Act, the age of majority was delink from the age of contractual capacity and was reduced from 21 years old to 18 years old. Therefore, Albert who is at the age of 17 when the contract is form is consider a minor and he does not have the capacity to form a contract. In this case Joshua as a person with capacity had form a contract with a minor. In the scenario provided, this contract is deemed to be a contract for employment.
Valid Contracts:
As the contract that is form by Albert and Joshua is for employment, this contract will be categories under valid contracts.
Valid contracts bind both the minor and the other party and they are fully enforceable. The contract on the whole must benefit the minor. Therefore, if it contains onerous terms prejudicial to the minor, the contract may not be binding.
Case Study 1:
In the case Valentini v Canali (1889), the court held that the minor is not able to recover the money because he had already had the benefit of the house. In Albert case, Albert had already fulfilled the terms that they had agreed in the contract. However, he had not benefited from this contract.
Terms:
The terms that is agreed by both the parties is that Albert will received 50% of the project work that Joshua bring in base on a profit sharing scheme.
Contract of Service involving a minor:
The main rule of a contract of service involving a minor is to be beneficial to him. The rationale is that such a contract enables the minor to earn a livelihood.
Case Study 2:
In the case De Francesco v Barnum (1890), the terms of the deed were deemed unreasonable and not beneficial to the girl and, therefore, unenforceable. In Albert’s case, the terms are both reasonable and beneficial to Albert therefore the contract is enforceable.
With all the above finding, the contract between Albert and Joshua is considered valid and enforceable.
Employment Law:
Under the Employment Act, the employer is supposed to pay the employee, at least once a month. Even if the contract is terminated, the employer is to pay the employee within 7 day of the end of employment. Failure to comply, the employer is guilty of an offence and can be fined up to $1000 or jailed for 6 months. In this case, Joshua had committed an offence under the Employment Act.
2. Betty’s Case
Gaming and Wagering Contracts:
Under Section 5 of the Civil Law Act (Cap. 43), all contracts or agreements, whether by parole or in writing by way of gaming or wagering shall be null and void. Also, No action shall be brought or maintained in the court for recovering any sum of money or valuable thing alleged to be won upon any wager or which has been deposited in the hands of any person to abide the event on which any wager has been made. As such, these contracts are of no legal effect and cannot be enforced.
Case Study 1:
In the case Star Cruise Services Ltd v Overseas Union Bank Ltd (1999), The High Court held that gaming and wagering debts will not be enforced by the courts in Singapore.
In Betty’s case, Betty and Joshua had form a gaming contract by coming up with a gaming scheme. They had collected bets from various parties even before the license was issue to them. Therefore, the contract that Betty and Joshua had formed contains illegality. The general effect of illegality is that the contract is void. The law will treats that the contract had not existed in the first place and no party can sue on the contract.
The Betting Act:
Under Section 3d of the Betting Act (Cap. 21), any person who receives directly or indirectly any money or valuable thing, for or in respect of any bet or wager on any such event or contingency, as is mentioned in this Act, in a common betting-house or betting information centre shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine of not less than $20,000 and not more than $200,000 and shall also be punished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years.
Under Section 7 of the Betting Act (Cap. 21), any money or valuable thing received by any person convicted under Section 5 (3) as a deposit on or in settlement of any bet or wager shall be deemed to have been received to or for the use of the person from whom it was received. Such money or valuable thing, or the value thereof, may be recovered accordingly with full costs of suit in any court of competent jurisdiction.
In Betty’s Case, she is guilty of an offence under the Betting Act. The money that she had collected may also face a possibility of being suit by her old casino clientele in the future as the gaming scheme is deemed to be illegal.
Conclusion
1. Albert’s Case
In conclusion for Albert’s case, the contract is found to be valid and therefore Albert is able to claim the outstanding amount estimated at $300 from Joshua. The recommended mean of doing so is to seek an out of court settlement through the Singapore Mediation Centre. This is because the cost is cheaper than litigation. The cost is estimated to be at $160.50 per party. It is also faster for the dispute to be resolved.
At the same time, Albert could also request that the fees for the mediation to be paid by Joshua. This is because under the Employment Act, Joshua had committed an offence by not paying Albert. If this case is to go for litigation, Joshua could be fine up to $1000 or jailed for not more than 6 month.
If the mediation failed, Albert could process with submitting his claim in the Small Claim Tribunals as his claim amount is only $300 which is under the maximum amount of $10000 for the Small Claim Tribunals.
2. Betty’s Case
In conclusion for Betty’s case, the contract that is form by Betty and Joshua is found to be voided as it involves activities which is deemed illegal. In this aspect, Joshua is unable to claim any amount from Betty from this partnership.
However, Betty is guilty of an offence under the Betting Act (Cap. 21). She may face future law suit if her old casino clientele are to pursue the matter.
Also, Betty may have also breeched the contract law that she had with her former employer by using the information of old casino clientele for her own intended business.
Reference
1. The subordinate courts of singapore:. (2012, February 19). Retrieved from http://app.subcourts.gov.sg/sct/index.aspx
2. SMC: Mediation small case commercial mediation scheme (SCCMS). (2012, February 19). Retrieved from http://www.mediation.com.sg/mediation_SCCMS.htm
3. Arbitration in singapore. (2012, February 19). Retrieved from http://www.siac.org.sg/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47&Itemid=65
4. Misrepresentation. (2012, February 25). Retrieved from http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Misrepresentation.php
5. Dishonesty - wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:. (2012, February 25). Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dishonesty
6. The Law Society of Singapore, Employment Law, Retrieved from: http://www.lawsociety.org.sg/public/you_and_the_law/employment.aspx
7. Singapore Mediation Centre, About SCCMS, Retrieved from: http://www.mediation.com.sg/mediation_SCCMS.htm
8. Benny S Tabalujan, Valerie Du Toit-Low (2009), Singapore Business Law, 5th edition, Business Law Asia, Page 63 to 75
9. Benny S Tabalujan, Valerie Du Toit-Low (2009), Singapore Business Law, 5th edition, Business Law Asia, Page 142 to 144
10. Benny S Tabalujan, Valerie Du Toit-Low (2009), Singapore Business Law, 5th edition, Business Law Asia, Page 147
11. Benny S Tabalujan, Valerie Du Toit-Low (2009), Singapore Business Law, 5th edition, Business Law Asia, Page 150 to 151
12. Benny S Tabalujan, Valerie Du Toit-Low (2009), Singapore Business Law, 5th edition, Business Law Asia, Page 156
13. Attorney-General’s Chamber, Betting Act, Retrieved from: http://agcvldb4.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/cgi_getdata.pl?actno=1960-REVED-21&doctitle=BETTING%20ACT%0A&date=latest&method=part&sl=1&segid=
14. Law Gazatte, In the Name of Gaming: Taking a Chance on the Law, Retrieved from: http://www.lawgazette.com.sg/2005-2/Feb05-feature1.htm
15. Quick MBA, Employment Law and Duties to One’s Former Employer, Retrieved from: http://www.quickmba.com/law/empl/
Contract & Agency Law
Assignment 2 – Group-based Assignment
January 2012 Presentation
BUS201 Assignment 2
Group-based Assignment
This assignment is worth 30% of the final mark for BUS201 Contract & Agency Law.
The cut-off date for this assignment is 26 Feb 2012, 2359hrs.
This is a group-based assignment. You should form a group of 3 members from your seminar group. Each group is required to upload a single report to MyUniSIM via your respective seminar group. Please elect a group leader. The responsibility of the group leader is to upload the report on behalf of the group.
It is important for each group member to contribute substantially to the final submitted work. All group members are equally responsible for the entire submitted assignment. If you feel that the work distribution is inequitable to either yourself or your group mates, please highlight this to your instructor as soon as possible. Your instructor will then investigate and decide on any action that needs to be taken. It is not necessary for all group members to be awarded the same mark.
___________________________________________________________________________
Question 1
In April 2009, Judy and Pauline visited Relax Spa and were coaxed to take up pre-paid packages. Judy signed up for a $5000 package and paid it in cash. Pauline, a regular spa visitor, signed up for a more expensive package and pre-paid $12,000. Unfortunately, before Judy or Pauline could use any of their pre-paid packages, Relax Spa closed suddenly. After several weeks of failed attempts to contact owners of Relax Spa, Judy and Pauline decided to take legal action. However they are concerned with legal expenses that they may have to incur. Advise Judy and Pauline the options they have in respect of the dispute resolution process with Relax Spa.
(20 marks)
Question 2
Dan owns a 25 years old antique car and decides to sell it for $120,000. Fred, a car collector, viewed the car and decided to buy it immediately. As they were entering into a Sales and Purchase agreement, Dan said, “Please pay attention to some of the exemption clauses that I have listed in the contract.” Fred replied, “I believe it is the same old clauses in any contracts. Since I did not bring my reading glasses and I can’t read well, I trust that all is in order.” Subsequently, Fred signed on all the 3 pages of the contract prepared by Dan.
After the purchase of the antique car, Fred discovered that the vehicle was not able to move beyond a certain speed (60km/ hour). Also, the internal components of the car’s engine were almost falling apart. Fred felt that the terms of the contract were unfair and argued that the
contract should be rendered void. Dan counter-argued that all the problems with the car were listed explicitly in the exemption clauses.
Advise Fred.
(30 marks)
Question 3
(a) On 1st May, Valerie sent Bonnie an email offering to sell her a car for $40,000. To ensure that Bonnie received the offer email, she sent her a letter stating similar contents - $40,000 for the sale of the car. On the 9th May, Valerie changed her mind about selling the car. She sent out an email to Bonnie to revoke the original offer. She also sent a letter of revocation. Unfortunately, the letter was lost in transit.
All this while unknown to Valerie, Bonnie was away on vacation. Bonnie had not been to the office and was unable to check her emails. When Bonnie returned home on 10th May, she saw the letter of offer from Valerie. Having the intention to buy a car, Bonnie accepted the offer and mailed her reply to Valerie in a letter.
2 days later, Bonnie returned to her workplace. Before checking any of her emails, she emailed Valerie to re-confirm her acceptance of Valerie’s offer of the car. By the end of the day, Bonnie managed to read both the emails of offer and the revocation that Valerie sent.
Advise Bonnie.
(20 marks)
b) Joshua, a rich businessman, decides to start a chain of small businesses. He engages Albert and Betty to be his business partners. For his first business venture, Joshua contracted Albert, a 17 years old polytechnic student, to venture into graphic design works. It was decided that Joshua would provide business contacts while Albert will focus on the actual projects. Based on a profit sharing scheme, Albert will get 50% of all the project works that Joshua brings in. 3 months later, Albert decided to ask for his share of payment estimated at about $300. Joshua claims that he is not legally liable to pay Albert as their contract is deemed to be void because of Albert’s incapacity.
Betty was working as a casino croupier with Resorts World Singapore when she first met Joshua. Sensing that there is money to be made in the gaming industry, Joshua encouraged Betty to quit her full-time job and enter into a partnership with him. Over the next few months, Betty and Joshua crafted an elaborate gaming scheme known as “3D.” They even registered themselves with ACRA as a formal partnership, specializing in “entertainment businesses.” Before the licence was approved, Betty was able to collect about $4000 worth of bets from her old casino clientele for their “3D” gaming scheme. Subsequently, it was discovered that ACRA has refused to grant them an entertainment licence and their “3D” gaming scheme was deemed to be illegal. With the $4000 at hand, Joshua called Betty for a spilt of his share. Betty refused, claiming that there was never a partnership and she is entitled to keep the entire share of the $4000.
Advise Albert and Betty.
(30 marks)
---- END OF ASSIGNMENT ----
Question 1
Advise Judy and Pauline the options they have in respect of the dispute resolution process with Relax Spa.
(20 Marks)
Introduction
The issue that Judy and Pauline facing is that they made a prepayment of S$5,000 and S$12,000 respectively to Relax Spa for the Spa packages. However, Relax Spa closed down before Judy and Pauline could use any of the services.
They are planning to seek resolution by taking legal actions on Relax Spa. However, they are concerned of the legal fee involved if the case is taken to the Court.
Issues
In order to make feasible alternatives for Judy and Pauline to consider, we need to examine and consider the followings:
1. Whether Relax Spa has breach the contract with Judy and Pauline.
2. Whether Judy and Pauline could file a dispute to the Court.
Rules
1. Whether Relax Spa has breach the contract with Judy and Pauline.
When a contract has formed, it must be discharged. The four main methods that a contract can be discharged are by performing, breaching, agreeing and frustrating.
Discharged by performing, means that the parties perform their obligations as stated in the contract and once is fulfilled, the contract ends
Discharged by breach of contract, means that one party fails to perform all his commitment stated in the contract
Discharged by agreement, means that the parties involved in a disputes negotiate and come to a certain terms that will supersede the previous agreement
Discharged by frustration, refers to the situation whereby a supervening event occurs which parties involved are not responsible and resulting to the basis of the contract to be terminated.
2. Whether Judy and Pauline could file a dispute to the Court.
The nature and the amount of the claim will determine which Court the claim should be filed with. In this case, the three Courts that handle civil matters are the District Court, in which handles claims dispute amount not exceeding S$250,000; the Magistrate Court, in which handles claims dispute amount not exceeding S$60,000; and the Small Claim Tribunal, in which handles claims dispute amount not exceeding $10,000 (or up to $20,000 where both parties to the dispute agree) which arises from a dispute regarding a contract for the sale of goods or the provision of services or in tort, where there is damage caused to any property, except damage sustained in an accident arising out of or in connection with the use of a motor vehicle.
The amount of claims filed by Judy and Pauline is S$17,000 (S$5,000 and S$12,000 respectively)
Application of Law to facts
1. Whether Relax Spa has breach the contract with Judy and Pauline.
In this case, Relax Spa, the promisor, has breached the contract with Judy and Pauline, the promisee, by not providing the services in the spa packages that has been promised upon Judy and Pauline.
On the other hand, Judy and Pauline, the promisor, paid S$5,000 and S$12,000 respectively to Relax Spa, the promisee, as prepayment for the spa package.
In addition, being a commercial agreement, there was an intention to create legal relations.
2. Whether Judy and Pauline could file a dispute to the Court.
In this case, Judy and Pauline could start a civil action at the Magistrate Court against Relax Spa because the disputed amount is S$17,000.
Alternatively, Judy and Pauline could file a claim to the Small Claim Tribunal against Relax Spa. This offers a faster and cheaper way to settle the dispute. However, as the amount involved is more than S$10,000, both the claimant and the respondent have to sign a memorandum in order to raise the jurisdiction to S$20,000.
There other dispute resolution methods such as mediation through the Singapore Mediation Centre and arbitration through the Singapore International Arbitration Centre.
Judy and Pauline could present their case to Singapore Mediation Centre under the Small Case Commercial Mediation Scheme (SCCMS) to seek their assistance. The advantages of going through mediation centre are faster settlement and cheaper as compare to file a dispute with the Court.
Judy and Pauline could also appoint an arbitrator to resolve their dispute with Relax Spa outside the Court. An arbitrator is a neutral party appointed by the party involved in the dispute and is often the subject matter expert to the nature of the dispute. The advantages of going through this are; is a faster process and the dispute is handled in private. However, the cost incurred will not be cheap.
Conclusion
Having established that there is a breach of contract by Relax Spa, Judy and Pauline could file a claim against Relax Spa. As Judy and Pauline is concerned of cost that will be incurred from the legal action, it is recommended that Judy and Pauline take their legal action through the Small Claim Tribunal or seek an out of court settlement through the Singapore Mediation Centre.
Question 2
Advise Fred if the contract with Dan over a purchase of a car can be rendered void.
(30 Marks)
Introduction
Fred a car collector bought a 25 year old car from Dan, and found out later that the car was not in good working condition. Fred wants to void the contract but Dan had already stated all the issues which the car had in the contract, and advised Fred to read through before signing. However Fred didn’t bring his spectacles and couldn’t see clearly, and assumed that the clause on the contract is the same as the other contracts that he had before and signed the contract without reading.
Issues
Fred wants to void the contract after he realized that the car he bought was not in good working condition. The following are issues to evaluate:
1. Whether the exemption clause in the contract had an legal effect
2. Whether the contract is voidable under the circumstances of Misrepresentation
3. Whether what Dan said before Fred signed the contract had any legal implication
Rules and Application of law to facts
1. Whether the exemption clause in the contract had any legal effect
When Dan and Fred were entering into sales and purchase agreement, Dan advised Fred to look through the contract’s exemption clauses before signing. However, when Fred mentioned that he couldn’t read as he didn’t bring his spectacles, Dan did fulfill the adequacy of notice to Fred, as he did not help Fred to understand or verify any doubts he had with the exemption clauses, before letting Fred sign. Fred later found out that the car’s internal engines were nearly falling apart and this problem could threaten Fred’s safety as a driver. The case of Jet Holding & Others v Cooper Cameron (Singapore) Pte Ltd & Another (2005) supports that clauses in the contract should be fairly and reasonably made known to the plaintiff’s attention.
Under the Main Purpose Rule, it states that the exemption clause cannot over throw the intended purpose of the contract. The main purpose of Fred buying the car is to use it to drive. However due to the defects that he later found out, it deprives him the main function as the engines of the car is close to spoiling. The car is below merchantable quality as it is not of safety and durability standards.
We can see that when Dan was constructing the contract, his terms were different from the other car contracts that Fred had before. We can see that the exemption clauses that Dan placed in had given him more protection compared to Fred. As the 3 pages contract did not state any refund or warranty policy of the car, nor did he let Fred test drive the car before buying.
There was insufficient time given to Fred to get his spectacles read through the exemption clauses on the contract before signing. The case of Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking 1971 supports that sufficient time to get his spectacles so that he is able to read the clause should be given to Fred, as the case states that he signed right after he told Dan he couldn’t see.
2. Whether the contract is voidable under the circumstances of Misrepresentation
Under section 2 Misrepresentation act, if a party had a misrepresentation before signing the contract, and it caused him to be at a disadvantage, the person causing the misrepresentation is held liable for damages to the other party even if the misrepresentation was not a fraud. Even though Fred couldn’t read without his spectacles, Dan just remained silent. He did not advise Fred to check the car’s engine or do a test drive to check the car’s speed before signing the contract. Fred has a misconception that the car was in good working condition and exemption clauses were the same as the ones he came across before. Fred only found out after purchasing that the car was in bad shape. This is a case which Fred had negligent misrepresentation before signing the contract, therefore contract voidable and Dan liable for the damages caused on Fred.
3. Whether what Dan said before Fred signed the contract had any legal implication
The sentence that Dan made was a representation and could not be considered a contract term, as Fred was asked to read the exemption clause to verify any doubts that he had before signing.
Under section 2 Theft Act (1968), it states that if there is an undermining factor but due to mutual mistake, it is not dishonest. However, if a material fact is intentionally misrepresented leading to consent, but not brought to the party’s attention, it is dishonest. In which in the case, Dan remaining silence when he knew Fred couldn’t read the contract, contributed to Fred’s misconception of the exemption clause. Thus, he signed the contract without knowing the full truth of the car’s condition. Dan action to remain silent is suspicious of dishonesty to cover up the truth. To add on, being the previous owner and the party who drafted the contract he is definitely aware of the flaws of the car’s condition.
Conclusion
The car contract made between the seller Dan and buyer Fred is voidable as the contract is not fair to Fred. Before Fred signed the contract there was negligence misrepresentation as he assumed that the car contract is the same as the past contracts he had. He only found out about the problem after he purchased it, and on Dan’s part, he did not explain the exemption clauses nor give Fred adequate notice to read through the 3 page contract. The contract did not fulfill the main purpose of the car as it was going to spoil and could threaten the safety of the driver.
The contract is not reasonable as it is constructed to the benefit of Dan and he showed suspicious acts of dishonesty by not clarifying the car problems with Fred. Dan insisted that the contract is enforceable when Fred wanted to void it shooting at the point that Fred didn’t read the exemption clauses before signing the contract.
In whole, once the contract is done Dan will receive $120, 000 in exchange for his 25 year old antique car, but what Fred got in exchange was a spoilt car and he had to spend money to repair it to a condition that is safe to drive with. The whole situation is beneficial to only one party, Dan. Therefore Fred is advised to either void the contract or claim damages from Dan.
Question 3(a)
Advise Bonnie.
(20 Marks)
Introduction
Valerie is making an offer to sell her car to Bonnie at the price of $40,000. Valerie sent an email and a letter on the 1st May to Bonnie offering the sale of the car. However, Valerie changed her mind and revoked the offer by emailing and also sending a letter of revocation to Bonnie on 9th May. Unknown to Valerie was that Bonnie was out of on vacation.
Bonnie returned on the 10th May and saw the letter of offer from Valerie. Bonnie with the intention of buying the car, mailed Valerie a letter of acceptance. Before checking her email, she reaffirms her acceptance by sending an email to Valerie about the acceptance. She only saw the email on the offer and revocation at the end of the day.
Issues
In order to advise Bonnie, we need to consider the following:
1. Whether is there a binding agreement between Valerie and Bonnie
2. Whether do they agreed to the use of postal acceptance rule
3. Whether is the letter of revocation valid when Bonnie received it
Rules
1. Whether is there a binding agreement between Valerie and Bonnie
For a contract to start there must be an offer and an acceptance communicated between the offeror and offeree
The offeror and offeree n this case is Valerie and Bonnie respectively.
An offer is an expression made by one party (“offeror”) to another party (“offeree”) communicating the offeror’s willingness to perform a promise.
The offer is only valid when there is communication between the two parties (offeror and offeree).
Acceptance is an unconditional expression of assent of concurrence to the terms of the offer.
The general rule is that the acceptance must be received by the offeror
2. Whether do they agreed to the use of postal acceptance rule
The general rule is that the acceptance must be received by the offeror. However, there are exceptional situation to consider. For this case, the postal acceptance rule is the exception.
This rule states that a written acceptance sent by ordinary post is effective once it is posted by the offeree, regardless whether it reaches the offeror or is totally misdirected and lost. One consideration to this rule is that the parties involved must agreed to its use or is reasonable to use the post.
3. Whether is the letter of revocation valid when Bonnie received it
Revocation occurs when the offeror withdraws the offer before the acceptance is made by the offeree. Revocation also can be done even there is an option to the favour of the offeree.
Application of Law to facts
1. Whether is there a binding agreement between Valerie and Bonnie
Valerie made an offer to Bonnie for the sale of her car at $40,000 on the 1st May by sending her an email and a letter. In this case, we could see that Valerie is the offeror and Bonnie is the offeree receiving the offer.
On the 10th May, Bonnie saw the letter of offer and having the intention to buy a car, accepted Valerie’s offer and mailed the letter of acceptance to Valerie. Bonnie’s acceptance is valid since she unconditionally accepted it.
From here, we could observe that there is a meeting of the mind that Valerie’s offer for the sale of her car to Bonnie at $40,000 is accepted by Bonnie with the intent of buying a car.
2. Whether do they agreed to the use of postal acceptance rule
In this case, Valerie and Bonnie did not agreed to the use of the postal acceptance rule beforehand, it is also clear that both Valerie and Bonnie do not intend to use it.
The intention is clear when Valerie sent a letter of offer together with an email to Bonnie and Bonnie sent a letter of acceptance but send an email to re-confirm the acceptance. These show that both Valerie and Bonnie indicated an implied condition that prompt acceptance was required and thus overrides the postal acceptance rule. In this situation, general rule applies and acceptance occurs when the posted letter is actually received.
3. Whether is the letter of revocation valid when Bonnie accessed it
In this case, the letter of revocation and an email copy of the letter were sent by Valerie on the 9th May. The letter of revocation was lost in transit and since the postal acceptance rule does not applies. This letter will be deemed invalid.
On the other hand, unknown to Valerie was that Bonnie, who is out of town and could not access her email till the 12th May, could not retrieve the email that was sent on 9th May until the end of 12th May. Thus, the time of receipt of the revocation is 12th May.
Conclusion
In conclusion, we can advise Bonnie that the Valerie’s letter of revocation is dated 12th May which is the email copy is valid.
In this case, Bonnie’s letter of acceptance to Valerie sent on the 10th May will not be invalid as she implied that prompt acceptance was required and the general rule applies whereby the letter has to be reached Valerie in order to be valid.
Since Valerie till this point has not indicated she received the letter of acceptance, the letter of revocation takes priority. Hence, the offer that Valerie put up has been revoked on the 12th May.
Question 3(b)
Advise Albert and Betty on the options that they have with regards to the dispute with Joshua.
Introduction
1. Albert is a 17 years old polytechnic student who is contracted by Joshua to work for him. Based on profit sharing scheme, Albert is to received 50% of the project works that Joshua bring in. 3 months later, when Albert decided to ask for his share of profit, which is estimated to be at $300, Joshua claims that he is not legally liable to pay Albert as their contract is deemed to be void because of Albert’s incapacity.
2. Betty was working as a casino croupier with Resort World Singapore when she first met Joshua. Joshua encouraged Betty to quit her full-time job and enter into a partnership with him. Over the next few months, Betty and Joshua crafted an elaborate gaming scheme known as “3D.” They even registered themselves with ACRA as a formal partnership, specializing in “entertainment businesses.” Before the licence was approved, Betty was able to collect about $4000 worth of bets from her old casino clientele for their “3D” gaming scheme. Subsequently, it was discovered that ACRA has refused to grant them an entertainment licence and their “3D” gaming scheme was deemed to be illegal. With the $4000 at hand, Joshua called Betty for a spilt of his share. Betty refused, claiming that there was never a partnership and she is entitled to keep the entire share of the $4000.
Issues
1. Albert’s Case
The issue in Albert’s case is to determine if Albert has the capacity to form a valid contract. If not, then we will have to determine if the contract between Albert and Joshua is valid. Also, we are to determine if Joshua had committed any offence.
2. Betty’s Case
The issue in Betty’s case is to determine if the contract is still valid since the activities are deemed to be illegal and if Betty is liable to share the $4000 with Joshua. Also, there might be a consideration that the activities they had done could be criminal offences and face further law suit.
Rules and Application of Law to facts
1. Albert’s Case
Incapacity of Albert:
Incapacity refers to the lack of capacity which may characterise a contracting party and the most significant category of persons who lack capacity is called “minors”. Minors are person who have not reached the age of majority. The common law age of majority is 21 years old. However, in January 2009 enactment of the Civil Law (Amendment) Act, the age of majority was delink from the age of contractual capacity and was reduced from 21 years old to 18 years old. Therefore, Albert who is at the age of 17 when the contract is form is consider a minor and he does not have the capacity to form a contract. In this case Joshua as a person with capacity had form a contract with a minor. In the scenario provided, this contract is deemed to be a contract for employment.
Valid Contracts:
As the contract that is form by Albert and Joshua is for employment, this contract will be categories under valid contracts.
Valid contracts bind both the minor and the other party and they are fully enforceable. The contract on the whole must benefit the minor. Therefore, if it contains onerous terms prejudicial to the minor, the contract may not be binding.
Case Study 1:
In the case Valentini v Canali (1889), the court held that the minor is not able to recover the money because he had already had the benefit of the house. In Albert case, Albert had already fulfilled the terms that they had agreed in the contract. However, he had not benefited from this contract.
Terms:
The terms that is agreed by both the parties is that Albert will received 50% of the project work that Joshua bring in base on a profit sharing scheme.
Contract of Service involving a minor:
The main rule of a contract of service involving a minor is to be beneficial to him. The rationale is that such a contract enables the minor to earn a livelihood.
Case Study 2:
In the case De Francesco v Barnum (1890), the terms of the deed were deemed unreasonable and not beneficial to the girl and, therefore, unenforceable. In Albert’s case, the terms are both reasonable and beneficial to Albert therefore the contract is enforceable.
With all the above finding, the contract between Albert and Joshua is considered valid and enforceable.
Employment Law:
Under the Employment Act, the employer is supposed to pay the employee, at least once a month. Even if the contract is terminated, the employer is to pay the employee within 7 day of the end of employment. Failure to comply, the employer is guilty of an offence and can be fined up to $1000 or jailed for 6 months. In this case, Joshua had committed an offence under the Employment Act.
2. Betty’s Case
Gaming and Wagering Contracts:
Under Section 5 of the Civil Law Act (Cap. 43), all contracts or agreements, whether by parole or in writing by way of gaming or wagering shall be null and void. Also, No action shall be brought or maintained in the court for recovering any sum of money or valuable thing alleged to be won upon any wager or which has been deposited in the hands of any person to abide the event on which any wager has been made. As such, these contracts are of no legal effect and cannot be enforced.
Case Study 1:
In the case Star Cruise Services Ltd v Overseas Union Bank Ltd (1999), The High Court held that gaming and wagering debts will not be enforced by the courts in Singapore.
In Betty’s case, Betty and Joshua had form a gaming contract by coming up with a gaming scheme. They had collected bets from various parties even before the license was issue to them. Therefore, the contract that Betty and Joshua had formed contains illegality. The general effect of illegality is that the contract is void. The law will treats that the contract had not existed in the first place and no party can sue on the contract.
The Betting Act:
Under Section 3d of the Betting Act (Cap. 21), any person who receives directly or indirectly any money or valuable thing, for or in respect of any bet or wager on any such event or contingency, as is mentioned in this Act, in a common betting-house or betting information centre shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine of not less than $20,000 and not more than $200,000 and shall also be punished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years.
Under Section 7 of the Betting Act (Cap. 21), any money or valuable thing received by any person convicted under Section 5 (3) as a deposit on or in settlement of any bet or wager shall be deemed to have been received to or for the use of the person from whom it was received. Such money or valuable thing, or the value thereof, may be recovered accordingly with full costs of suit in any court of competent jurisdiction.
In Betty’s Case, she is guilty of an offence under the Betting Act. The money that she had collected may also face a possibility of being suit by her old casino clientele in the future as the gaming scheme is deemed to be illegal.
Conclusion
1. Albert’s Case
In conclusion for Albert’s case, the contract is found to be valid and therefore Albert is able to claim the outstanding amount estimated at $300 from Joshua. The recommended mean of doing so is to seek an out of court settlement through the Singapore Mediation Centre. This is because the cost is cheaper than litigation. The cost is estimated to be at $160.50 per party. It is also faster for the dispute to be resolved.
At the same time, Albert could also request that the fees for the mediation to be paid by Joshua. This is because under the Employment Act, Joshua had committed an offence by not paying Albert. If this case is to go for litigation, Joshua could be fine up to $1000 or jailed for not more than 6 month.
If the mediation failed, Albert could process with submitting his claim in the Small Claim Tribunals as his claim amount is only $300 which is under the maximum amount of $10000 for the Small Claim Tribunals.
2. Betty’s Case
In conclusion for Betty’s case, the contract that is form by Betty and Joshua is found to be voided as it involves activities which is deemed illegal. In this aspect, Joshua is unable to claim any amount from Betty from this partnership.
However, Betty is guilty of an offence under the Betting Act (Cap. 21). She may face future law suit if her old casino clientele are to pursue the matter.
Also, Betty may have also breeched the contract law that she had with her former employer by using the information of old casino clientele for her own intended business.
Reference
1. The subordinate courts of singapore:. (2012, February 19). Retrieved from http://app.subcourts.gov.sg/sct/index.aspx
2. SMC: Mediation small case commercial mediation scheme (SCCMS). (2012, February 19). Retrieved from http://www.mediation.com.sg/mediation_SCCMS.htm
3. Arbitration in singapore. (2012, February 19). Retrieved from http://www.siac.org.sg/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47&Itemid=65
4. Misrepresentation. (2012, February 25). Retrieved from http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Misrepresentation.php
5. Dishonesty - wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:. (2012, February 25). Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dishonesty
6. The Law Society of Singapore, Employment Law, Retrieved from: http://www.lawsociety.org.sg/public/you_and_the_law/employment.aspx
7. Singapore Mediation Centre, About SCCMS, Retrieved from: http://www.mediation.com.sg/mediation_SCCMS.htm
8. Benny S Tabalujan, Valerie Du Toit-Low (2009), Singapore Business Law, 5th edition, Business Law Asia, Page 63 to 75
9. Benny S Tabalujan, Valerie Du Toit-Low (2009), Singapore Business Law, 5th edition, Business Law Asia, Page 142 to 144
10. Benny S Tabalujan, Valerie Du Toit-Low (2009), Singapore Business Law, 5th edition, Business Law Asia, Page 147
11. Benny S Tabalujan, Valerie Du Toit-Low (2009), Singapore Business Law, 5th edition, Business Law Asia, Page 150 to 151
12. Benny S Tabalujan, Valerie Du Toit-Low (2009), Singapore Business Law, 5th edition, Business Law Asia, Page 156
13. Attorney-General’s Chamber, Betting Act, Retrieved from: http://agcvldb4.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/cgi_getdata.pl?actno=1960-REVED-21&doctitle=BETTING%20ACT%0A&date=latest&method=part&sl=1&segid=
14. Law Gazatte, In the Name of Gaming: Taking a Chance on the Law, Retrieved from: http://www.lawgazette.com.sg/2005-2/Feb05-feature1.htm
15. Quick MBA, Employment Law and Duties to One’s Former Employer, Retrieved from: http://www.quickmba.com/law/empl/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)