TUTORIAL CIA2007

JLO Associates was a legal firm, which consists of three (3) partners, Jazz,
Lamborgini and Opel. One of their clerical staffs named Beatle was the most
senior among other staffs. Jazz, Lamborgini and Opel always treated Beatle
like he was also their partner. One day, Jazz’s client, Miss Alfa came to JLO
Associates to discuss her case. Jazz had introduced Beatle as one of his
partners and told Miss Alfa that Beatle was an experienced legal expert and
could also gave his legal advice to Miss Alfa’s case. The next appointment,
Miss Alfa came to see Jazz but he was not available since he got to attend
one urgent court matter. Miss Alfa sought a legal opinion from Beatle. Beatle
gave his advice and submitted his bill to Miss Alfa. After paying the bill, Miss
Alfa discovered that Beatle had wrongly advised her and he had no legal
qualification so as to act as a legal adviser. She decided to sue Beatle and
claimed back her money. Beatle refused to be liable against Miss Alfa’s loss.
He claimed that he was not the one who should be responsible since he was
only a staff and not a legal practitioner. When Miss Alfa submitted her claim to
Jazz, he denied being liable too.

In the meantime, Lamborgini instructed his clerk, Cooper, to buy two copies of
the latest Contract Act 1950 from the Merc Bookshop. Lamborgini gave
Cooper RM20.00 to pay for the two statutes, which cost RM10.00 each.
Cooper went to Merc Bookshop and found that the price for the Contract Act
1950 had been increased to RM15.00 each. Knowing that Lamborgini was
really in need with the statute, Cooper therefore bought the two statutes by
advancing his money of RM10.00. When Cooper gave those two statutes to
Lamborgini and explained about the additional payment, which he had
advanced, Lamborgini took both of the statutes without saying anything.
Cooper did not satisfy since Lamborgini failed to pay his money.

In another incident, Opel was appointed by Datson to handle his accident

case. Datson, who was the defendant in that case, had instructed Opel to
convince the plaintiff to drop the case by offering RM1K to the plaintiff. Opel
refused to follow Datson’s instruction as it is against his ethical code as a
lawyer. Datson insisted Opel to compromise since he had paid his legal fee to
Opel. Furthermore, Datson claimed Opel must follow his instruction as he was
the principal and Opel was his agent.

Advise all the parties involved in the above case based on the law of agency.
Support your answer with relevant sections and case-law.