BMLW5103

TAKE HOME EXAMINATION

MAY 2023

BMLW 5103

BUSINESS LAW

MATRICULATION NO : CGS02285401
IDENTITY CARD NO. : 870123385481

1
 BMLW5103

PART A

Q1

a)

The principle that "an acceptance must be absolute and unqualified" is a fundamental concept
in contract law. It means that when a party receives an offer and intends to accept it, the
acceptance must mirror the terms of the offer precisely, without adding, modifying, or
contradicting any terms. Any attempt to introduce new terms or conditions in the acceptance
would be considered a counter-offer, rather than a valid acceptance. This principle ensures
clarity and certainty in contract formation, as both parties need to be on the same page
regarding the terms of the agreement.

In the context of Malaysia business law, this principle is guided by the Contracts Act 1950,
which governs contracts in Malaysia. Let's discuss this understanding with relevant legal
provisions and cases:

1. Contracts Act 1950: Section 7 - Acceptance must be absolute:

Section 7 of the Contracts Act 1950 states:
"Acceptance must be absolute and unqualified. A qualified acceptance is a counter-offer."
This section makes it clear that any attempt to qualify or modify an acceptance would render
it a counter-offer, which implies a rejection of the original offer and a new proposal from the
offeree.

2. Case: Felthouse v Bindley (1862) - Application in Malaysia:

While this case is from English common law, its principles have been followed in Malaysian
jurisprudence. In Felthouse v Bindley, the plaintiff intended to buy a horse from his nephew
and wrote a letter expressing his intention to do so unless he heard otherwise. The nephew
did not respond, but an auctioneer mistakenly included the horse in an auction. The plaintiff
sued to enforce the sale, but the court held that there was no contract because silence cannot
constitute acceptance. This case underscores the need for a clear and unqualified acceptance.

2
 BMLW5103

3. Case: Syarikat Bekerjasama-sama Serbaguna Pertama Sabuk Nusantara Bhd v Kumpulan

Pertama Sabuk Nusantara Sdn Bhd (2008) - Application in Malaysia:
In this Malaysian case, the plaintiff's acceptance contained additional terms not present in the
offer. The court held that these additional terms constituted a counter-offer, and as the
defendant did not accept those terms, there was no valid contract. This case reaffirms the
principle that an acceptance must be absolute and unqualified.

4. Case: Tek Seng Holdings Bhd v Hing Nyit Enterprise Sdn Bhd (2005) - Application in
Malaysia:
In this case, the court emphasized that an acceptance must be identical to the offer and must
not introduce new terms. Any variation in the terms of acceptance would result in a counter-
offer. This case highlights the significance of maintaining consistency between the offer and
acceptance.

In conclusion, the principle that "an acceptance must be absolute and unqualified" is a
foundational concept in contract law, ensuring that parties are in clear agreement on the terms
of the contract. In Malaysia, this principle is codified in the Contracts Act 1950, and various
legal cases have illustrated its application in contract disputes. Adhering to this principle
promotes certainty, prevents misunderstandings, and maintains the integrity of contract
formation in business transactions.

b)
In Malaysia, the Contract Act 1950 governs contracts and provides guidance on various
aspects of contract law, including the intention to create legal relations. Section 2(h) of the
Contract Act 1950 defines a contract as "an agreement enforceable by law." This definition
highlights the essential element that an agreement must be legally enforceable to be
considered a contract.

The principle that parties must have an intention to create legal relations for an agreement to
be legally binding is established in the Contract Act 1950 and is reflected in various
provisions and cases. Let's delve into this principle based on the Contract Act 1950:

3
 BMLW5103

1. Section 10 - What Agreements Are Contracts:

Section 10 of the Contract Act 1950 outlines the requirements for a valid contract. It states
that all agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of parties competent to
contract, for a lawful consideration, with a lawful object, and are not expressly declared to be
void. This section emphasizes that a crucial criterion for an agreement to be a contract is that
it must be enforceable by law.

2. Section 26 - Agreement in Restraint of Marriage, Void:

Section 26 of the Contract Act 1950 explicitly declares that agreements in restraint of
marriage are void. This provision reflects the notion that agreements related to personal or
domestic relationships, like marriage, are not considered binding under contract law.

3. Case: Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893) - Application in Malaysia:

Although not based in Malaysia, this case's principles have been influential in contract law
worldwide, including Malaysia. In this case, the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company offered a
reward to anyone who contracted influenza after using their product as directed. The court
held that the company's advertisement constituted an offer and that the usage of the product
in accordance with the terms was an acceptance. This case illustrates how an objective
approach can determine the intention to create legal relations. If parties manifest their intent
through their actions, a legal obligation can arise.

4. Case: Chan Wai Keung v UCPB Malaysia Bhd (2010) - Application in Malaysia:
In this Malaysian case, the court emphasized the requirement of an intention to create legal
relations. The court ruled that informal discussions and agreements during preliminary
negotiations do not necessarily constitute a legally binding contract if the parties did not
intend to create legal obligations.

In essence, the Contract Act 1950 reflects the principle that parties must intend to create legal
relations for an agreement to be enforceable as a contract. While the Act does not explicitly
mention "intention to create legal relations," it encompasses this concept through its various
provisions and the broader legal framework it establishes. This principle ensures that parties

4
 BMLW5103
are only bound by duties and liabilities if they genuinely intended to enter into a legally
binding agreement.

Q2
a)
That agreements in restraint of trade or profession are generally considered void and
unenforceable due to their potential to hinder competition and restrict individuals' economic
freedom. However, under the Contract Act 1950 in Malaysia, there are certain circumstances
where such agreements can be regarded as valid and enforceable. These exceptions are based
on specific conditions that need to be met to ensure fairness and reasonableness in the
agreement. Here are a few circumstances where an agreement in restraint of trade or
profession might be considered valid:

1. Sale of Goodwill (Section 28):

Section 28 of the Contract Act 1950 allows an agreement restraining the seller of a business
from carrying on a similar business within specified local limits, provided that the buyer is
associated with the business's goodwill. In this context, a restraint of trade or profession is
valid if it's part of the sale of the goodwill of a business. The purpose of this exception is to
protect the legitimate interests of the buyer in maintaining the value of the acquired business.

2. Partnership Agreements (Section 30):

Section 30 of the Contract Act 1950 permits partners in a partnership agreement to agree to a
reasonable restraint on their trade or profession upon the dissolution of the partnership. Such
restraints are acceptable if they protect the goodwill of the partnership business and are
reasonable in duration and scope.

3. Employment Contracts (Section 28A):

Section 28A of the Contract Act 1950 allows for limited restraints in employment contracts to
protect the employer's legitimate interests. These restraints must be reasonable in terms of
duration, geographical scope, and the nature of the restriction. For instance, a salesperson
may be restrained from working for a direct competitor for a reasonable period after leaving
their current job.

5
 BMLW5103
4. Trade Secrets and Confidential Information:
Agreements that restrict a party from disclosing or using trade secrets or confidential
information obtained during the course of employment or business relationship may be
upheld. The courts generally view protecting trade secrets as a legitimate interest that justifies
certain restraints.

5. Protecting Legitimate Business Interests:

An agreement in restraint of trade or profession may be valid if it's designed to protect
legitimate business interests, such as preventing unfair competition or misuse of sensitive
information, and if it's reasonable in terms of scope, duration, and geographic limitations.

6. Reasonableness Test:
In all the circumstances mentioned above, the courts in Malaysia apply a reasonableness test
to determine the validity of the restraint. An agreement will be upheld if it's deemed
reasonable to protect the legitimate interests of the parties involved and doesn't go beyond
what's necessary to achieve that protection.

It's important to note that the reasonableness of the restraint is a critical factor in determining
its validity. Agreements that are excessively broad, overly restrictive, or go beyond what is
necessary to protect legitimate interests are more likely to be deemed unenforceable.

In conclusion, while agreements in restraint of trade or profession are generally disfavored,

the Contract Act 1950 in Malaysia recognizes certain exceptions where such agreements can
be valid and enforceable. These exceptions are based on safeguarding legitimate business
interests and upholding the principles of fairness and reasonableness

b)
Under the Contract Act 1950 in Malaysia, a consideration or object in an agreement can be
regarded as opposed to public policy if it goes against the principles and values that society
deems as essential for the public good. Agreements that are against public policy are
considered void and unenforceable. Let's discuss when a consideration or object in an
agreement is regarded as opposed to public policy:

6
 BMLW5103
1. Unlawful Acts or Offences (Section 24):
Consideration or object that involves the commission of an unlawful act or an offence is
against public policy. Agreements that promote or involve illegal activities, such as fraud,
theft, or harm to others, are void. This is because society aims to deter and prevent such
behavior.

2. Immorality (Section 24):

Agreements that are immoral or contrary to accepted moral values are considered against
public policy. For instance, agreements promoting prostitution or encouraging unethical
behavior would be regarded as void.

3. Restraint of Marriage (Section 26):

Agreements that unreasonably restrain marriage are against public policy. Such agreements,
which aim to prevent someone from getting married, are typically not enforceable.

4. Restraint of Trade (Section 28):

Agreements that unreasonably restrain trade are against public policy. Contracts that hinder
competition, innovation, or free enterprise might be deemed unenforceable. However, there
are exceptions, as previously discussed, where restraint of trade can be valid in specific
circumstances.

5. Interference with Administration of Justice (Section 24A):

Agreements that interfere with the administration of justice or obstruct legal proceedings are
void. Any agreement that attempts to influence the outcome of a legal case, such as bribing
witnesses or judges, is against public policy.

6. Contracts Injurious to the State (Section 25):

Agreements that are injurious to the state or public welfare are considered void. Contracts
that undermine national security, public safety, or the welfare of citizens may fall into this
category.

7. Agreements Defeating Legal Provisions (Section 24B):

7
 BMLW5103
Agreements that are designed to defeat the provisions of any law are void. If parties enter into
an agreement with the intention of evading legal requirements or consequences, such an
agreement is against public policy.

8. Agreements to Defraud Creditors (Section 26A):

Agreements intended to defraud creditors are void. These agreements aim to hinder or delay
the satisfaction of creditors' legitimate claims.

9. Agreements Against Good Faith (Section 10A):

While not explicitly mentioned in the Contract Act 1950, agreements that go against good
faith and fair dealing might be scrutinized under the public policy doctrine. Courts generally
look unfavorably upon agreements that are designed to deceive, exploit, or harm another
party.

In summary, a consideration or object in an agreement is regarded as opposed to public

policy when it involves unlawful acts, immorality, restraint of marriage or trade, interference
with the administration of justice, contracts injurious to the state, defeating legal provisions,
agreements to defraud creditors, or actions against good faith. Agreements falling within
these categories are generally considered void and unenforceable due to their conflict with
the principles of public policy.

8
 BMLW5103

PART B

Q1

A
Under the Contract Act 1950 in Malaysia, an agency relationship is formed when one person,
known as the principal, appoints another person, known as the agent, to act on their behalf.
The authority of an agent to act on behalf of the principal can be either express or implied.
Express authority is explicitly granted by the principal to the agent, while implied authority
arises from the conduct and circumstances of the parties, even if not explicitly stated in the
agency agreement or verbally communicated.

The Contract Act 1950 provides a framework for understanding the scope and extent of an
agent's authority, even if not expressly mentioned in the agency agreement or verbal
instructions. This concept is crucial because it allows for flexibility in agency relationships
and enables agents to fulfill their duties effectively.

1. Section 188 - No Authority, Express or Implied, to Act Contrary to Instructions:

This section of the Contract Act 1950 states that an agent cannot exceed the authority given
to them by the principal. However, there may be instances where the principal's instructions
are not explicitly stated in the agency agreement or orally conveyed. In such cases, the agent
may still possess implied authority to act within the usual scope of their agency role.

2. Section 189 - Agent's Authority in an Emergency:

Section 189 of the Contract Act 1950 discusses an agent's authority in emergencies. It states
that an agent can act beyond their usual authority if it is necessary to protect the principal's

9
 BMLW5103
interests and the agent cannot communicate with the principal in a timely manner. This
implies that an agent can have implied authority to take necessary actions when immediate
action is required, even if such authority is not explicitly provided for in the agency
agreement.

3. Case: Ong Leong Poh v William Jacks & Co. (M) Sdn Bhd (1981) - Application in
Malaysia:
In this case, the court emphasized that implied authority can arise from the nature of the
agency relationship, the agent's position, and the usual course of dealing between the parties.
In situations where an agent has acted within the scope of their role and in accordance with
the common practices of the trade, the court may find that implied authority existed, even if
not explicitly mentioned.

4. Case: Tan Ah Hiow v Tey Kim Choo (1979) - Application in Malaysia:

From this case, the court held that the authority of an agent can be implied from the
circumstances and the conduct of the parties. If an agent's actions are consistent with what a
reasonable person in the principal's position would expect, the agent's authority can be
inferred, even if not expressly specified.

In conclusion, the Contract Act 1950 in Malaysia recognizes that an agent's authority can be
implied from the circumstances, even if not explicitly mentioned in the agency agreement or
orally communicated. This concept allows for flexibility and practicality in agency
relationships, as agents may need to make decisions within the scope of their role without
constant communication with the principal. The Act's provisions and relevant case law
emphasize the importance of considering the nature of the agency, the agent's position, and
the usual course of dealing when determining the scope of implied authority.

B)
In the situation where an individual (Dadu) continues to interact with clients on behalf of a
company (Kutu Sdn Bhd) as if he is still their agent, even after his formal agency relationship
has ended, there are potential legal and practical implications to consider. Additionally, if

10
 BMLW5103
Kutu Sdn Bhd is aware of Dadu's actions but chooses to ignore them, this can have further
consequences. Let's explore the implications of these actions:

1. Apparent Authority (Section 8):

Section 8 of the Contract Act 1950 deals with apparent or ostensible authority. It states that
acts done by an agent in the ordinary course of business bind the principal, even if the agent's
authority has been revoked or limited, as long as the third party dealing with the agent is
acting in good faith and is not aware of the revocation or limitation.

In this scenario, if Dadu continues to interact with clients and they reasonably believe he is
still an agent of Kutu Sdn Bhd, those interactions might bind Kutu Sdn Bhd due to the
principle of apparent authority. If Kutu Sdn Bhd is aware of Dadu's actions but ignores them,
it might not necessarily shield them from potential legal implications.

2. Ratification (Section 149):

Section 149 of the Contract Act 1950 allows a principal to ratify actions taken by an agent
without proper authority. If Kutu Sdn Bhd is aware of Dadu's interactions with clients and
does not take any action to disavow those interactions, their inaction might be interpreted as a
form of ratification. In such a case, Kutu Sdn Bhd could potentially become bound by Dadu's
actions.

3. Estoppel (Section 115):

Section 115 of the Contract Act 1950 relates to estoppel. If Kutu Sdn Bhd's actions or lack of
action leads Dadu to believe that he still has authority to act on their behalf and Dadu relies
on that belief, Kutu Sdn Bhd might be estopped (prevented) from denying Dadu's apparent
authority. This could result in Kutu Sdn Bhd being held responsible for Dadu's interactions
with clients.

4. Loss of Control and Reputation:

Allowing someone who is no longer an authorized agent to continue interacting with clients
can lead to confusion, misunderstandings, and potential harm to the company's reputation. It
might also result in the loss of control over client relationships and business transactions, as

11
 BMLW5103
Dadu could potentially make commitments or representations that the company is not aware
of or may not approve of.

5. Contractual and Employment Implications:

Kutu Sdn Bhd may have contractual obligations with Dadu, and his actions could impact the
terms of their prior agreement. Additionally, if Dadu is representing himself as still connected
to Kutu Sdn Bhd, this might raise employment or contractual issues that could have legal
ramifications.

6. Case: Kelang Lama Sdn Bhd v Menteri Kesejahteraan Bandar (1988) - Application in
Malaysia:
In this case, the court held that even though a principal did not directly authorize an agent's
actions, if the principal allowed the agent to act in a certain way and clients believed the
agent had authority, the principal could still be bound by the agent's actions.

In conclusion, under the Contract Act 1950 in Malaysia, if Dadu continues to interact with
clients as if he is still an agent of Kutu Sdn Bhd and Kutu Sdn Bhd is aware of this but
ignores it, there are potential implications. These implications include the principles of
apparent authority, ratification, and estoppel, which might lead to legal consequences where
Kutu Sdn Bhd could be held responsible for Dadu's actions. It's advisable for Kutu Sdn Bhd
to take appropriate actions to clarify Dadu's status and avoid any misunderstandings or legal
complications.

Q2
A
Under the Partnership Act 1961 in Malaysia, the death of a partner generally leads to the
dissolution of the partnership, unless there is an agreement to the contrary. However, the
assumption of the deceased partner's position by their next-of-kin does not happen
automatically based solely on the Contract Act 1950. Partnership law has its own set of rules
and principles that govern the transfer of partnership interests upon the death of a partner.
Let's discuss this matter in more detail:

1. Dissolution of Partnership:

12
 BMLW5103
Section 33 of the Partnership Act 1961 stipulates that the death of a partner results in the
dissolution of the partnership, unless the partnership agreement specifies otherwise. This
means that the partnership as a whole is dissolved upon the death of a partner.

2. Next-of-Kin Assuming Partner's Position:

The Contract Act 1950 deals with general principles of contract law, whereas the Partnership
Act 1961 addresses the specific rules governing partnerships. The assumption of a deceased
partner's position by their next-of-kin is not a straightforward process and would require
compliance with the provisions of the Partnership Act.

3. Rights of Representatives:
Upon the death of a partner, the deceased partner's rights and interests in the partnership are
typically transferred to their legal representatives, such as their estate administrators or
executors. These legal representatives have the authority to handle the deceased partner's
affairs, including their interests in the partnership.

4. Admission of New Partner:

If the surviving partners and the legal representatives of the deceased partner agree, the legal
representatives or next-of-kin may be admitted as partners in the existing partnership.
However, this would require the unanimous consent of all existing partners, and any new
partner would need to comply with the partnership's terms and conditions.

5. New Agreement Required:

Assuming the deceased partner's position is not automatic, as it involves the creation of a new
partnership agreement that includes the legal representatives or next-of-kin. This new
agreement would outline the terms of the partnership, including the financial contributions,
profit-sharing arrangements, and management responsibilities of the new partner.

6. Case: Yong Fah Tung Sdn Bhd v Yap Tuan Huat (1989) - Application in Malaysia:
In this case, the court held that the personal representatives of a deceased partner could not
automatically become partners in the firm without the unanimous consent of the existing
partners.

13
 BMLW5103
In conclusion, while the Contract Act 1950 is relevant to general principles of contract law,
the rules governing the assumption of a deceased partner's position are outlined in the
Partnership Act 1961. The next-of-kin or legal representatives of a deceased partner do not
automatically become partners in the absence of an agreement to the contrary. Any such
assumption would require a new agreement among all existing partners and the legal
representatives.

B
Rita's liability in the partnership business after her resignation depends on the terms of the
partnership agreement, the nature of her resignation, and the applicable partnership laws in
Malaysia. It's important to note that partnership law is primarily governed by the Partnership
Act 1961 in Malaysia. Based on the information provided, here are some considerations:

1. Resignation and Liability:

Rita's liability in the partnership business would generally cease upon her formal resignation,
as long as her resignation was properly communicated to the other partners and in accordance
with the terms of the partnership agreement.

2. Notice of Resignation:
If Rita properly provided notice of her resignation in accordance with the partnership
agreement or applicable laws, her liability should be limited to the partnership's financial
obligations up to the date of her resignation.

3. Continuing Liability:
If Rita continues to receive notices regarding the partnership's financial debts, there could be
a few reasons for this:

14
 BMLW5103
Unsettled Debts at Resignation: If there were outstanding debts or financial obligations of the
partnership at the time of her resignation, Rita might still be liable for her share of those debts
up to the date of her resignation.

Partnership Agreement: The partnership agreement might contain provisions related to the
distribution of financial obligations and liabilities upon the resignation of a partner. If the
agreement holds her responsible for certain obligations even after resignation, she might have
ongoing liability.

4. Notice to Creditors: It's important for Rita to ensure that her resignation was properly
communicated not only to the other partners but also to the creditors of the partnership. This
is to prevent any misunderstandings or claims against her for debts incurred after her
resignation.

5. Dissolution and Winding Up: If the partnership is being wound up or dissolved after Rita's
resignation, she should not be liable for any debts incurred during the winding-up process, as
her liability would generally be limited to the partnership's debts up to her resignation.

6. Consult Legal Advice: Given the potential complexity of partnership matters and the
specific details of the situation, it's advisable for Rita to consult with a legal professional who
specializes in partnership law. They can review the partnership agreement, assess the
circumstances, and provide specific guidance based on applicable laws and the terms of the
partnership.

In summary, Rita's liability in the partnership business after her resignation depends on
various factors, including the terms of the partnership agreement and the nature of her
resignation. Consulting with a legal expert can help Rita understand her rights, obligations,
and potential liabilities in this situation.

Q4
A

15
 BMLW5103
Under the Hire-Purchase Act 1967 in Malaysia, which governs hire-purchase agreements, a
hirer does have the right to terminate the agreement due to financial hardship. This provision
is outlined in Section 40 of the Hire-Purchase Act. Here's the procedure for such a
termination based on the Contract Act 1950:

1. Notice of Termination (Section 40):

When a hirer experiences financial hardship and wishes to terminate the hire-purchase
agreement, they must provide written notice of their intention to the owner (financier). The
notice should clearly state the hirer's intention to terminate the agreement due to financial
difficulties.

2. Grounds for Termination:

The hirer's financial hardship must be genuine and substantial to justify termination.
Financial hardship may include situations where the hirer is facing financial difficulties that
prevent them from continuing with the hire-purchase arrangement.

3. Return of Goods (Section 40):

Upon termination of the hire-purchase agreement, the hirer is required to return the goods
(the subject of the hire-purchase) to the owner. This should be done in a reasonable manner
and within a reasonable time frame. The owner may require the hirer to return the goods to a
designated location.

4. Settlement of Outstanding Amounts (Section 40):

Upon returning the goods, the hirer is generally relieved of the obligation to continue making
further payments under the hire-purchase agreement. However, the hirer may still be liable
for any outstanding amounts that have accrued prior to the termination, including payments,
fees, and charges. The settlement of these outstanding amounts should be done in accordance
with the terms of the agreement and applicable laws.

5. Timing of Termination:
The notice of termination due to financial hardship should be given as soon as possible after
the hirer realizes their inability to continue with the payments. Delaying the notice might lead
to the accrual of additional charges or complications.

16
 BMLW5103

6. Rights of the Owner (Section 40A):

Section 40A of the Hire-Purchase Act provides the owner with the right to recover possession
of the goods after the termination of the agreement. The owner can repossess the goods from
the hirer's possession.

7. Documentation and Records:

Both the hirer and the owner should maintain proper records of the termination process,
including the notice of termination, the return of goods, and any settlements of outstanding
amounts. These records can be important in case of any disputes or legal proceedings.

It's important to note that while the Contract Act 1950 does provide some general principles,
the specific procedures and requirements for termination due to financial hardship are mainly
outlined in the Hire-Purchase Act 1967. If you're considering terminating a hire-purchase
agreement due to financial difficulties, it's advisable to refer to the relevant sections of the
Hire-Purchase Act and seek legal advice to ensure that you're following the correct
procedures and protecting your rights.

In Malaysia, the process of repossession of goods, including vehicles, under hire-purchase

agreements is governed by the Hire-Purchase Act 1967. The Act outlines the rights and
responsibilities of both the owner (financier) and the hirer (customer) in such situations. Let's
analyze whether Sakan Finance is entitled to repossess Danny's car based on the scenario
provided:

1. Repossession Notice (Section 22):

Under Section 22 of the Hire-Purchase Act 1967, the owner (Sakan Finance) is required to
serve a written repossession notice to the hirer (Danny) if the hirer has breached the terms of
the hire-purchase agreement, including non-payment. The repossession notice must provide
the hirer with a specified period to rectify the breach and make the outstanding payments.

2. Absence of the Hirer During Repossession:

17
 BMLW5103
The scenario states that Danny's car was repossessed by Sakan Finance in his absence. While
the Hire-Purchase Act does not explicitly address the presence or absence of the hirer during
repossession, it is generally advisable and considered best practice for the owner to repossess
the vehicle in a peaceful and non-confrontational manner, respecting the hirer's property
rights. It's also important to note that the repossession notice serves as a warning and an
opportunity for the hirer to address the breach before repossession occurs.

3. Rights of the Hirer (Section 22A):

Section 22A of the Hire-Purchase Act states that if the hirer has paid at least one-third of the
hire-purchase price (or a proportionate amount in certain cases), the owner cannot repossess
the goods without a court order. This provision is designed to protect hirers who have made
substantial payments towards the purchase of the goods.

4. Exercising Rights Reasonably:

While the Act provides owners with the right to repossess goods under certain circumstances,
it is important that they exercise this right reasonably and in accordance with the law. This
includes adhering to the procedural requirements for serving a repossession notice and
ensuring that the repossession is carried out without causing damage or undue inconvenience
to the hirer.

5. Legal Remedies for Hirers:

If Danny believes that Sakan Finance acted unlawfully or improperly in repossessing his car,
he may seek legal advice to understand his rights and potential remedies. This could include
exploring options for challenging the repossession or seeking compensation for any losses
incurred due to the repossession process.

18