In my opinion, the advantages will be it saves up a lot of time when judging a case. This is because a particular case will have an answer already if the nature of the case is similar to the past cases and therefore the conclusion should be the same. Besides that, it also prevents mistakes. The existences of a guide will prevent judges from making any mistake when making decisions. It also gives a greater certainty in the law. Overall i would say that it creates a great uniformity in the Malaysian Law system.
On the other hand, the disadvantages will be lack of relevance for the current era in my opinion. As time passes by, people might have different perception on things and past law might not be as useful now. Things that are not acceptable in the past might be accepted now. This eventually creates a scenario that the law is stick or glued to the past. What if the past judgement is wrong as there not not much technologies to support the evidence and there is now. Should the court decision be the same as the past? In addition, this doctrine somehow will limit the developments of the law. Though there will be room for law or acts to be furthere establishied but i do believe it somehow will slow down the entire process.
The Case:
Chong and Wei went shopping and decided to shop at Super Supermarket. Wei looked at the goods which were on display and decided to purchase three bottles of face cream which were on offer. She took the bottles to the counter where she paid for them. As they were leaving the supermarket, the cashier came up to them and told them that they have to return the goods. Advise Wei according to Contracts Act 1950 and relavant decided case(s).
According to the case of Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v. Boots Cash Chemist, displaying of goods is merely an invitation to treat and not an offer. Eventually the offer and acceptance has occur. Initially there is a display of goods by the supermarket to sell the product. This means that there is an invitation by the supermarket for Wei to purchase that product and Wei has taken it by proceeding to the counter. Then later, Wei offered to buy the product and the cashier has accepted it and received money from Wei. This proves that the offer and acceptance has already occur and this is a legal contract. Therefore, there is no legal terms that says that Wei will have to return the items.
Chong and Wei went shopping and decided to shop at Super Supermarket. Wei looked at the goods which were on display and decided to purchase three bottles of face cream which were on offer. She took the bottles to the counter where she paid for them. As they were leaving the supermarket, the cashier came up to them and told them that they have to return the goods. Advise Wei according to Contracts Act 1950 and relavant decided case(s).
According to the case of Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v. Boots Cash Chemist, displaying of goods is merely an invitation to treat and not an offer. Eventually the offer and acceptance has occur. Initially there is a display of goods by the supermarket to sell the product. This means that there is an invitation by the supermarket for Wei to purchase that product and Wei has taken it by proceeding to the counter. Then later, Wei offered to buy the product and the cashier has accepted it and received money from Wei. This proves that the offer and acceptance has already occur and this is a legal contract. Therefore, there is no legal terms that says that Wei will have to return the items.
Basically common law system and civil law system are used to differentiate legal systems and approaches in law. The use of the phrase ‘common law’ in this perspective refers to all those legal systems which have implemented the historic English legal system. The US in particular practices common law and many other Commonwealth and former Commonwealth countries retain a common law system including Malaysia. The phrase ‘civil law’ refers to those other jurisdictions which have adopted the European continental system of law derived essentially from ancient Roman law, but some says that is due much to the Germanic tradition.
The common difference to be made between the two systems is that the common law system liable to case-centred and hence judge-centred, permitting scope for a discretionary, practical approach to the particular problems that appear before the courts. Meanwhile, the civil law system tends to be a codified body of general abstract principles which will be in command of the implement of judicial discretion.
The common difference to be made between the two systems is that the common law system liable to case-centred and hence judge-centred, permitting scope for a discretionary, practical approach to the particular problems that appear before the courts. Meanwhile, the civil law system tends to be a codified body of general abstract principles which will be in command of the implement of judicial discretion.
For Geena's case she will be charged under the criminal division.
She has violated the section 25(1)(a) of the Identity Cards Act 2006 because possessing a false identity document with intention of using it for establishing registrable facts about herself.
In addition she has an offence under the Section 15C of the Securities Industry Act 1983 and if convicted, she can be fined a maximum of RM1mil or jailed up to 10 years for her actions of running and unregistered online investment portal scam.
She has violated the section 25(1)(a) of the Identity Cards Act 2006 because possessing a false identity document with intention of using it for establishing registrable facts about herself.
In addition she has an offence under the Section 15C of the Securities Industry Act 1983 and if convicted, she can be fined a maximum of RM1mil or jailed up to 10 years for her actions of running and unregistered online investment portal scam.
For the case of Ryan he is liable under the criminal law.
Ryan will need to make a police report within 48 hours and have the right to remain silence until court process. Until then, Ryan is not guilty until proven. As for Ryan he will be charged for inconsiderate driving under Section 65 of the RTA. The bill is defined by holding a handphone with a hand and communicating it with any person. The penalty for a first offender upon conviction in Court is a fine of up to $1,000 or a jail term of up to 6 months, or both. For a repeat offender, the penalty is a fine of up to $2,000 or a jail term of up to 1 year, or both. These penalties are similar to existing penalties for inconsiderate driving. However this is not the end of the Ryan's case as he has involved in a car accident which involves a human being and further prosecution will be judged against him.
As for the poor victim, under the Road Traffic Act 1987, victims of road accident who suffered death or personal injuries caused by negligence of drivers who did not have a valid road policy of insurance are liable to receive compensation from Bureau. So, if the victim does has his or her own insurance policy then claims can be made as well.
Ryan will need to make a police report within 48 hours and have the right to remain silence until court process. Until then, Ryan is not guilty until proven. As for Ryan he will be charged for inconsiderate driving under Section 65 of the RTA. The bill is defined by holding a handphone with a hand and communicating it with any person. The penalty for a first offender upon conviction in Court is a fine of up to $1,000 or a jail term of up to 6 months, or both. For a repeat offender, the penalty is a fine of up to $2,000 or a jail term of up to 1 year, or both. These penalties are similar to existing penalties for inconsiderate driving. However this is not the end of the Ryan's case as he has involved in a car accident which involves a human being and further prosecution will be judged against him.
As for the poor victim, under the Road Traffic Act 1987, victims of road accident who suffered death or personal injuries caused by negligence of drivers who did not have a valid road policy of insurance are liable to receive compensation from Bureau. So, if the victim does has his or her own insurance policy then claims can be made as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
