lawyer

Already a Member? Login Now

The issue raised is the debtor(Ahmad) defaulted in paying monthly installment to the creditor(Easy Bank Bhd) which causes the creditor to repossessed the car. Ahmad has no right to oppose the term as he bought the car from the person that is not the owner, and the seller has no authority. Thus, the buyer does not acquire any title on the items. This refers to Nemo dat quad non habet in section 27 of the Sale of Goods Act.

To enlighten the fact, a preview to the case study of Lim Chui Lai v. Zeno. LTD is made. Ahmad is not the owner of the property; however, he had sold the materials. Ahmad was not the owner of the property because the respondent was merely placing the material for proceeding construction. Therefore, Ahmad was merely a bailey, but not the owner by the time when he sold it to the appellant. Since Ahmad is not the owner, nor he had the title, he had no authority to sell the property. Since this case is crystal clear, Ahmad, in this situation should not has any objection when Easy Bank Bhd repossessed his car as he has no title, and he merely have the authority on the item.

There is, however, another thing that you could consider in this situation. There is also the Right of Unpaid Seller against the Goods. It is defined as either; a) when the whole of the price has not been paid or tendered; or, b) when a bill of exchange or other negotiable instrument has been received as conditional payment, and the condition on which it was received has not been fulfilled by reason of the dishonour of the instrument or otherwise. In this context, the term ‘seller’ includes any person in the position of a seller, as, for instance, an agent of the seller to whom the bill of landing has been endorsed, or a consignor or agent who has himself paid, or directly responsible for the price. Thus, in this situation Easy Bank Bhd is as the seller as they have the title and the authority towards the item.

Due to that, Easy Bank Bhd has unpaid seller’s right which subject.