Font size
WorksheetsPartners' Relation with Outsiders
Total questions: 6
Worksheet time: 4mins
"A partner is an agent of the firm within the scope of his authority...A suit against a partnership is a suit against all partners, as though all the partners were individually named in the suit."
In which case was this judgment laid down?
Chop Cheong Tuck v Chop Tack Loong & Ors
Polkinghorne v Holland
Restoran Rizqin v Asia Commercial Finance (M) Berhad
Merbok MDF Sdn Bhd v Shuhaiza Shuib & Ors
Azmi was employed as the manager of a firm dealing in printing services. The partners of the firm, Jason and Muthu left the entire business to be handled by Azmi. Later, the firm was sued by Mr. Borhan for breach of supply of contract that he had entered into with Azmi.
Mr. Borhan argues that he had believed Azmi to be a partner of the firm at the time of the transaction, as the contract bore the seal of the firm. Johan and Muthu however, maintain that Azmi was merely their employer and deny that they had given him the authority to enter into such a contract.
Are Johan and Muthu liable for the breach of contract?
Which case would be most suitable to support your answer?
Yes
No
Chop Cheong Tuck v Chop Tack Loong v Ors
Sithambaram Chetty v Hop Hing & Ors
Eng Leong Material Supplies Sdn Bhd v Ho Lee Ing
In which case did the court decide that it is within the duty of solicitors when consulted, to advise the client on what needs to be done in order to find out the viability of an investment, but a solicitor cannot give advice on the valuation of real property?
Polkinghorne v Holland
Tetuan Clough Thuraisingham & Jeya Mahesan v Standard Chartered Bank Malaysia Bhd
Merbok MDF Sdn Bhd v Shuhaiza Shuib & Ors
Court v Berlin
Is a request for an overdraft facility within the ordinary course of business of a legal firm?
Why?
Yes
No
Because it is not a trading firm where borrowing of money is necessary for the business to be carried out
Because there exists an implied power for a partner to borrow money in that type of business
Because it is in the usual way for a non-trading partnership to operate its business
In which case did the court decide that the two parties were not partners because:
(i) there was no representation by the party dealing with the contractor that he was acting on behalf of the other party; and
(ii) the contractor did not believe that the party with whom he was dealing with, was acting for anyone else.
Mercantile Credit Co. Ltd v Garrod
Nationwide Building Society v Lewis
Chop Cheong Tuck v Chop Tack Loong & Ors
Construction Engineering (Aus) Pty Ltd v Hexyl Pty Ltd
In Eng Leong Material Supplies Sdn Bhd v Ho Lee Ing, did the court find the 1st defendant who had retired from the firm to be liable?
No, because there was no indication of holding out by the 1st defendant after she had retired from the firm.
Yes, because under section 19(2), a retiring partner does not cease to be liable for what occurred before she left the partnership.
Yes, because the 1st defendant still represented herself as a partner even after she had left the firm by signing the cheques, which amounted to holding out under section 16.
No, because the 1st defendant did not possess apparent authority to enter into the contract.
