Question

state cases (held and fact) related to the hire purchase agreement in Malaysia.

- Malaysian hire-purchase law must be referred to

-cases for each segment ( before, during and after the hire purchase agreement)

- make sure the cases are based on hire purchase law in Malaysia

Answer 1

BEFORE

In the case of Thambipillai v Borneo Motors (M) Ltd, the court held that: A hire purchase agreement is a bailment coupled which provides an option to buy to the hirer. So that, apart from bailment, the main purpose of the hire-purchase agreement is to enable the hirer to become the owner by observing all the terms and conditions of the agreement. The same is said in section 2 of the Hire Purchase Act 1967.

The section 2 defines a “hire-purchase transaction” as “being a transaction of hire with an option to purchase the said goods under the transaction regardless of whether the agreement describes the installments as rent or hire or otherwise.”

DURING

In Pang Brothers Motors Sdn Bhd v Lee Aik Seng, a car was taken by the respondent on hire-purchase agreement from the appellant. The respondent here failed to pay the instalments due and the appellant issued a notice under section 16(1) under the HP Act 1967. The issue here was whether the notice was in fact served. And the court held that section 16 of the Act clearly specifies that the period before which the seizure can take place shall be not less than twenty-one days after the service of the notice. However, the date specified in the notice was two days short of the statutory minimum requirement as per section 16, the notice was therefore bad in the eyes of law even if served and its effect was therefore null and void.

AFTER

If the owner has taken possession of any goods, the hirer shall be liable for the cost of repossession. The hirer would not hold any rights to deny his liability to pay the cost because it is stipulated in the hire-purchase agreement between the owner and the hirer which is signed and agreed by him/her. The hirer’s would only hold the right to the extent of contending total costs incurred when the owner took possession of the goods. In Khoo Thau Sui v United Engineers, the court held that the appellant (hirer) had contractually undertaken to pay such costs as per the agreement made between them which was also signed by the hirer and he could not thereafter dispute his obligation to pay the actual cost incurred.