Salman, who owned a vacant bungalow lot, agreed to sell it to Maryam for RM300,000. The transfer of the lot was to be completed by the end March 2010. Last week, Salman, discovered that other lands in the vicinity of his lot were fetching much higher prices and changed his mind about selling the lot to Maryam. He proceeded to set up a company, Tatipu Sdn Bhd (the company), of which he was the majority shareholder and managing director. His wife, who is also a director, is the only other shareholder of the company. He then transferred the bungalow lot to the company.
Subsequently he informed Maryam that he will not be able to proceed with the sale of the property to her as it has been sold to a third party, i. e. the company, but that he is prepared to pay damages for breach of contract. Maryam wishes to sue both Salman and Tatipu Sdn Bhd for breach of contract and claimed specific performance. Advise Maryam whether she will be successful in her claim for specific performance. (You are required to confine your answer to issues relating to company law. ) (10 marks) Issue: Whether Maryam can claim the bungalow lot from Salman and/or Tatipu Sdn Bhd by lifting the corporate veil (case law/judicial exceptions) under the concept of separate legal entity. (1/2 marks) Rules: -In separate legal entity doctrine, a company has a legal personality of its own apart from the persons who owns it. The law will treat the company and the members as separate legal persons as decided in the case Salomon v Salomon. -However, in certain circumstances, a court may ignore the separate legal entity of a company (lifting the corporate veil) and look at the members of the company and make them liable.
The Essay on Big Companies Music Lot People
Every newsletter I tirade about something involving life as a traveling minstrel, sometimes complaining and sometimes waxing philosophical. This year I do not feel like chewing anybody out -- in fact, I want to thank a lot of people. I started out as a populist musician, playing for people wherever we were: at parties, on street corners, in taverns- anywhere, paying little attention to showbiz or ...
The relevant rule here is the use of company to evade legal obligation to commit fraud under the case law or judicial exceptions and the relevant case is Jones v Lipman. (3/4 marks) Application: -As a general rule, Tatipu Sdn Bhd and the member (Salman) are the separate legal persons. -By creating Tatipu Sdn Bhd and transferring the bungalow lot to the Tatipu Sdn Bhd, Salman actually use Tatipu to evade his legal obligation to Maryam. -The court will lift the corporate veil in the case of fraud done by Salman.
-Therefore, the court will disregard the separate legal person and will hold that Salman and his company as one and the same. 3/4 marks) Conclusion: -Both Salman and the company, Tatipu Sdn Bhd will be ordered to specially perform the contract to sell the house to Maryam. (1/2 marks) – Please follow exactly the model answer (the answer format) above for the problem question in the assignment/test/final exam. Your answer can be in point form but must be in full sentence just like the above answer. Make sure you write ‘Issue’, ‘Rules’, ‘Application’ and ‘Conclusion’ exactly as above. Remember that one IRAC for one issue. If there are two or three different issues (in one question), then you must have two or three sets of IRAC for that question.
