Aziz, Jamal and Baba are brothers. They are partners and registered co-owners of the Baju Fashion. The three brothers have orally agreed that profits would be shared equally and that no partner shall, in the name of the firm, place any order for goods exceeding RM5,000.00 per invoice on credit without the consent of at least one other partner. Aziz did most of the buying for Baju Fashion. Star Tailorshop Company Ltd, a company registered in Singapore was one of their largest suppliers. Recently however, the brothers have not been satisfied with the quality of Star Tailorshop's shirts, and they agreed not to order from Star Tailorshop Company Ltd in future. In January 2010, due to an oversight, Aziz ordered stocks of shirts worth RM6,000.00 on credit from Star Tailorshop Company Ltd in the name of Baju Fashion. When Jamal and Baba found about the order, they were very upset and told Aziz that they were not going to pay Star Tailorshop Company Ltd. Discuss whether Baju Fashion is liable to pay Star Tailorshop for the stocks ordered by Aziz. Give reasons for your answer.
-
Welcome to our legal community! Click here or the create new topic button to ask a question and receive answers and comments from our friendly and helpful legal community.
Articles that answer frequent legal questions are in our Law Guide. Important legal news is reported in The Law JournalYou can find a lawyer near you in the Lawyer Directory. If you know that you need to hire an attorney, you can submit a case review from a lawyer.
Corporate Law Case Study
- Thread Starter erik8tlw
- Start date
- Status
army judge
Super Moderator
Aziz, Jamal, and Baba own a variety of businesses.
They must make many rupees!!!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
They must make many rupees!!!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
jharris352
New Member
We don't do homework. I charge for that.
"Discuss whether Baju Fashion is liable to pay Star Tailorshop for the stocks ordered by Aziz. Give reasons for your answer."
Do you want a discussion, or an answer?
BF is not liable to pay because ST knew or should have known that they were scheming and feuding deadbeats and could not be trusted in the first place. Furthermore ST has been fobbing substandard goods off on them for so long that it has incurred a karmic debt which is enforceable in a court of equity. In the immortal words of Denning, M.R. in Beswick v. Beswick, which is good law everywhere in Asia, "Payback is a bitch." Extra credit for suggesting the proper recourse of J&B against A is to give him a "wet willy".
Do you want a discussion, or an answer?
BF is not liable to pay because ST knew or should have known that they were scheming and feuding deadbeats and could not be trusted in the first place. Furthermore ST has been fobbing substandard goods off on them for so long that it has incurred a karmic debt which is enforceable in a court of equity. In the immortal words of Denning, M.R. in Beswick v. Beswick, which is good law everywhere in Asia, "Payback is a bitch." Extra credit for suggesting the proper recourse of J&B against A is to give him a "wet willy".
Both. Thank you.
- Status
Share this page
