You are on page 1of 14

PREPARED BY

LIYAANA BINTI AHMAD


MUNIZZAH BIN AHMAD
NABILA SYAZWANI BINTI ROSLI

QUESTION
Ragaraju is a lorry driver working with
Chin Seng. One day he was asked to
deliver 5000 chickens to Singapore
before 10.00 am the next morning. He
arrived at the Malaysian-Singapore
border around 7.00 am that morning but
his lorry was not allowed to enter
Singapore. Ragaraju was told that all
chickens from Malaysia are prohibited by
Singapore government for fear of SARS

Ragaraju decided to sell all the


chickens at Pasar Tani in Johor
Bharu as he afraid all the chickens
might die as they have not been
fed since last night. Chin Seng
later found out Ragarajus action
and he is very mad. Advise Chin
Seng whether Ragaraju is liable to
him

ISSUES

Whether Ragaraju is liable to


his action or not.

Theories of Law
Section 142 By Necessity
In commercial-when a person is entrusted
with anothers property and it becomes
necessary to act to preserve that property
although he has no authority to do so.

-cases

Great Northern Railway v Swaffield


The railway co. carried dfs horses to its
destination. On arrival there was no one
to meet since the stationmaster did not
know the dfs address, he instructed that
the horse to be put in a stable. Later , the
railways co claimed for the charges for
the stable from the df refuse to pay.
Pf (railways co.) had acted as agent of
necessity in this matter. The horse
needed to be keep safe in the stable.
Therefore their claim was successful.

3 condition
1. It is impossible for the agent to get
the principals instruction
-cases Springer v Great Western
Railway Co.
Defendant agreed to carry of a
tomatoes to Convant Garden Market.
Dfs employees were on strike so they
unloaded the tomatoes. Some of
tomatoes were found bad.

The defendant then decided to sell the


tomatoes locally because they believe that
the tomatoes were not in saleable condition
when arrived at the Convent Garden market.
However they do not tell the plaintiff about
their decision. Then the plaintiff claimed
damages based on market price of the
tomatoes in Convent Garden market.
The plaintiff was entitled to damages
because the defendant were not agent of
necessity. This is because they failed to
communicate with the plaintifff when they
could have done so.

The agents action is necessary,


in the circumstances, to prevent
loss to the principal with respect
to the good committed to his
charge-only if urgency exists.
2.

3. The agent of necessity has


acted in good faith.

Application
By applying section 142 , Ragaraju is a
person who is entrusted or responsibility
to deliver the 5000 chicken to Singapore
that owned by Chin Seng . However
Ragaraju decided to sell all the chickens
at Pasar Tani in Johor Baharu because to
avoid from the chicken might die as it
have not been fed since last night, even
he know he not have authority.
-

The decision in Great Northern


Railways v Swaffields case , stated
that plaintiff acted as agent of
necessity because of plaintiff have
necessary to act to preserve that
horse even though plaintiff has no
authority to do so. Therefore in
Ragarajus situation , it becomes
necessary to sell the chickens at
pasar tani to prevent lose.

Condition 1
There is no impossible to Ragaraju to
get the principals instruction
Cases
The decisions in Springer v Great
Western Railway co. cases states that
the plaintiff was entitled to damages
because the defendant were not agent
of necessity. Defendant was failed to
communicate with the plaintiff when
they could have done so. In Ragaraju
situations , he is not agent of
necessity
and
he
is
fail
to

Condition 2
Ragarajus action is necessary to
prevent Chin Seng loss. So he
decide to sell all the chicken at
pasar tani.
Condition 3
Ragaraju has acted in good faith
because he afraid all the chicken
might die if he not sell the chicken

Conclusion
No, Ragaraju is not liable to
his action