PaTriCKLiM Diary

Mr tong insures his shop against fire for Rm1000,000 in 1 may year 2010 with ING insurance berhad .During the time Mr tong purchase the insurance, the insurer ask for the purpose of the shop, Mr tong said the shop is for selling flower . In fact the behind the shop is rent for the used of car workshop. On 3 Oct 2010 the Mr Tong  shop is on fire . In this incident , whether a not Mr tong still entitle for the compensation under fire insurance ?

In this case , Mr tong is fail to disclose the fact which is  material that the part of the shop is used for repair services . This case is similar to the case" Goh choi leng v public life co" which is not disclose information that is material.  As your knowledge workshop usually keep many engine oil which is easily  cause  fire . Due to failure to  disclosed fact which is material , the contract is voidable by ING insurance company . Mr tong Might not entire to this  compensation against fire insurance .

Mr Chan buy life  insurance on April 2008, during the time he buy the insurance , insurer ask Mr Chan whether he is health and he is non smoker and non- alcoholic ? He answer he is non-smoker and non-alcoholic .In 2 month later  , Mr Chan become a smoker and after he bought the insurance due to the failure in business . After  4 month Mr Chan involve  in car accident and dead  . In this case ,whether a not  Mr Chan family  entire to the  compensation for the life insurance ?

In this case, Mr Chan family not fraud from no to provide disclose information which is material  , this because Mr.tong involve in smoking and drinking after  he buy the insurance . According to rules of insurance  , Mr.tong have 6 month period to updated he personal info to the insurance company . so in this case, Mr tong no fraud  for  non-disclose information which is consider material or late update he personal information . So M r Chan family still entitle for this compensation under life insurance .

The word Uberrimae fidei is souce from latin  , it carry the same meaning as " utmost good faith" . Principle of  Uberrimae fidei always apply under the law of contract (especially in insurance) in the case  of one party is under a fundamental duty to disclose all the material fact and surrounding circumstances that could influence the decision of the other party to enter into the agreement .This because insurance contract is based dupon mutual trust and confident between the insurer and insured. Non-disclose or partial-disclose information which is material fact will cause the agreement to be voidable.

But non-disclose information which is not material will not cause the fracture  of  the contract .

Dr.Lim start up the Clinic business in 2005, the business is grow up due to the good services provide by this clinic . At 2007, Dr.Lim own the Hospital Tawaka due to the extension of his business .Giving the name of hospital as Tawaka Behad . Unfortunately , at the year 2008 Dr.Lim attack from stroke , and doctor  advise him to retire and have more rent in the house . Due he health problem and the case Dr.lim don't have any children . At year 2009 ,DR. Lim sold the hospital Tawaka to SIME behad .The worker form Tawaka  protest to have more benefit  due to the change of shareholder . the point is whether a not the change in company share holder will cause the change in company structure?

In case of Sime behad with  worker from Tawaka hospital . It's similar to the case of " abdul aziz bin Atan v ladang rengo malay eastate SDN. BHD. According to the company act 1965,  incorporated company is legal separate entity from his shareholder and employee  . The change of company shareholder will not cause in  company structure  . So Tawaka worker have no right  to claim for more benefit from the new shareholder  .

Mr David and Mr CK are best friends . In year 2006 there start up the fruit import business . The business is going well when the get a contract to supply fruit to tesco  .  Without the knowledge of CK, Mr David try to make some secret profit by allocated some share in stock market  using the capital  of company . Unfortunately crisis happen in year 2007 and Mr David loss all the share . At the same time company need capital turnover .  Mr ck know the later when the debtor come to him .In this case whether a not Mr. Ck liable for the debt and loss cause by the Mr.David ? what are the legal action can Mr.CK take against him ?

The case  above same with the case" salomon V salomon ".According  to the company act 1965, company are separate legal entity that separate and distinct from its members and shareholder. In this case , Mr ck are not liable for the lose cause by Mr.David . Mr CK can bring the case to the court and apply injunction against Mr.David  to freeze all asset belong to him   .

Memorandum and Articles of association are primary legal document of a company ,by which company will conduct daily business , however this  the content which of which must not infringe or over-ride any of the previous and requirement of the company act 1965 .

The contents of the Memorandum and Articles include :

• The name of the company (which must end with the words “Sendirian Berhad” if it is a private company, or just “Berhad” if it is a public company);
• The situation of the company’s registered office;
• The objects of the company, i.e the nature of business intended to be carried out;
• That the liability of the members is limited
• The nominal amount of the authorized share capital with which it is proposed to register the company and the division of such capital into shares of a fixed amount; and
• The association clauses

 Both Memorandum and Articles of association have to be filed to the suruhanjaya syrikat malaysia at the time of incorporation or there is any change thereafter. The “Memorandum of Association” must be signed by at least two subscribers; duly dated. The signature of each subscriber must be witnessed by a third person. Each of the subscribers must undertake to subscribe for one or more shares of the company.