Whether Wang have been induced by Zila fraudulent misrepresentation.

Whether Wang could recover the gold diamond ring from Zila.

1. Whether Wang have been induced by Zila fraudulent misrepresentation.

S.17(a) of the Contract Act (CA) spell that, when a party suggest, as to a fact, of that which is not
true by one who does not believe it to be true he is said to commit fraud. The definition of fraud was
further define in the case BP (Sabah) Sdn Bhd v Syarikat Jubrin Enterprise [1997]. Where fraud
implies some base conduct and moral turpitude as the person accrue advantage or injury detriment
from another person.
In the case of Kheng Chwee Lian v Wang Tak Thong [1983], respondent have been misled in
buying a smaller portion of land than what he was originally intended to sign in the agreement. The
FC agreed that respondent have been induced by fraudulent misrepresentation and this come
within the meaning of S.17(a) and (d) of the CA.
Applying BP (Sabah) Sdn Bhd case to the instance case, Zina fraudulent act in issuing a dishonored
cheque and accrue the gold diamond ring was indeed come under the ambit of fraud. Moreover,
applying Kheng Chwee Lian to the instance case, Wang was being fraudulently misrepresented and
mislead into believing that Zila is a prominent singer and she probably have the ability to afford the
gold ring. Therefore Wang do not hesitate in receiving the cheque without any further inquiries.
Hence, Wang is said to be induced by Zila’s fraudulent misrepresentation.

2. Whether Wang could recover the gold diamond ring from Zila
By virtue of S,19(1) of CA, when consent to an agreement is caused by fraud or misrepresentation,
the agreement is a contract voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so cause. S.66 of
the same act stated that, when agreement is discover to be void, or contract become void, any
person who received any advantages bound to restore it.
In the case of Safgurprusad v Har Nurain Das [1932], the court ruled that when a contract was
avoided on grounds of misrepresentation or fraud becomes a void. As such it falls clearly within the
ambit of S.66. Moreover in Abdul Razak bin Datuk Abu Samah v Shah Alam Properties Sdn Bhd
& Anor [1999], defendant have been induced by plaintiff enter into a sale and purchase agreement.
Court held that, there have been fraudulent misrepresentation and granted rescission on the
contract. However damage may be granted base on the footing, as to place the innocent party in the
position that he never been induced. In Haji Ahrnad Yarkhan v Abdul Gaul Khan and
another[1937], Nagpur held that damages for rescission under S.76 CA will not be available as it
provide compensation for damages. When contract rescinded for fraud, the contract is rescinded ab
initio just as it had never been inforce.
Applying Safgurprusad to the instance case, it is clear that the agreement between Wang and Zila
is void ab initio as it was fraudulent misrepresented by Zila about her true identity. Hence the
advantage obtain by Zila should be return to Wang. Moving on, applying Abdul Razak case to the
instance one, the damage that cause to Wang shall only re restore instead of compensation as to
prevent double recovery. Furthermore, applying Haji Ahrnad case to the instance case,
compensation under S.76 shall not be given to Wang, as the agreement shall be treated as never be
inforce before.
All in all, Wang could void his sale and purchase agreement with Zila and he should be deem to have
right under S.66 of CA. That mean the title of the gold diamond ring should be return to Wang.

S.27 of Sale of Goods Act (SOGA) state that, where goods are sold by a person who is not the
owner thereof, and who does not sell them under the authority or with the consent of the owner,
the buyer acquires no better title to the goods than the seller had.