STREET BEGGARS: WHAT IS YOU VIEW, LEGALIZE OR NO?

Street begging at times i feel takes advantage of the less privileged. And some countries it has been linked to human trafficking. Some human trafficking syndicates promise people of better lives in other countries but in actual fact the people end up in the street begging, not for themselves though, for their captors. Moreover handicapped people are always put on the street by their guardians to beg. Which i feel is totally uncalled for. These people are supposed to care for them and love them. If they cant afford to take care for their basic needs why not ask for help from the authorities? Some even go to the extent of using them for personal gain. Not only that, street begging annoys some people. Not all people are compassionate therefore those in need should follow the correct channel where the compassionate could come and help them not disturb everyone.

Therefore this is common nuisance. least we forget that street begging encourages laziness. I have personally came across physically and mentally fit people, fit enough to take on a conventional job begging on the street. This upsets me to see people want to get money from people that worked hard for it the easy way. On the other hand, it is obvious that the bodies intended for the purpose of assisting those in need including the government cannot help everyone therefore it is sad that street begging might always be there and maybe essential to a certain point but as a personal view, i do not only think it should not be legalized, i think it should be abolished.

UNLWAFUL ASSEMBLY IN MALAYSIA

While the Malaysia penal code makes it an offence for a gathering of more than 5 people without police permission, there have been so many ebrows raced by this act. the penal code ACT 574 reads thus

Unlawful assembly

141. An assembly of five or more persons is designated an “unlawful assembly”, if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is—

(a) to overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, the Legislative or Executive Government of Malaysia or any State, or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant;

(b) to resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; (c) to commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other

offence;

(d) by means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or

(e) by means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do.

The major issue which has left people, with no answers is the fact that the law is numb when it comes to peaceful rallies or protest. there has been so many cases where people show their desire to hold a protest, in the interest of the society so as to express their views and in many cases the police have refused to issue such permits and declared their wishes an illegal protest. One major example of such issue was the HINDRAF PROTEST, see video titled PROTEST.

the rally which started off peacefully and had promised to end so, took a major blow when the police came in with force in an attempt to end it, spraying water on the protester and using their power as the law enforcers to get the crowd dispersed, this caused a major havoc and around 300 people were arrested with some charged while others were discharged with caution.

In short basically i just want to say, nobody is perfect and as such a discrepancy have shown itself in this law and as hence maybe its time it is amended. this is because by not allowing peacefully protest it somehow denies peoples freedom of speech and expression. While there might be an argument that there is consideration and permits have been issued before for public protest, maybe the problem is not in the law but with the law enforces as they are not consistent in issuing such permit, as such instead of amending the laws it might be also a good move for the police to exercise some form of fairness in issuing their assembly permits to the public, yes of course the hindraf rally maybe was an exception considering the events leading to that but what about many other rallies where there were controversies and yet permits were issues!!!!!!!!

LAW OF CONTRACT- GIVE ADVICE

Chong and Wei went shopping and decided to shop at Super Supermarket. Wei looked at the goods which were on display and decided to purchase 3 face cream which were on offer. She took the bottles to counter where she paid for them. As they were leaving the supermarket, the cashier came up to them and told them that they have to return the goods. Advise Wei according to Contracts Act 1950 and relevant decided cases.

Comment

the above case is an example which can help us determine the key differences between, agreement, offer, acceptance and invitation to treat. however the important issue here will be to discuss whether Wei should return the goods or no!

firstly, goods on display is merely invitation to treat(e,g the case of Fisher v. Bell) and cannot amount to a binding contract, however by taking the goods to the counter with willingness to accept the stated price Wei was making an offer (Section 2(a) of the Contracts Act define offer as, “When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or to abstain from doing anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of that other to the act or abstinence) to the shop through their cashier as hence the moment the cashier scans the goods and receives payment from Wei, there is acceptance ( Section 2(b) - ACCEPTANCE is when the person to whom the proposal is made signifies his assent thereto, the proposal is said to be accepted: a proposal, when accepted, becomes a promise) therefore an agreement has been reached as hence a legally binding contract exist between Wei and the shop based on terms and conditions of purchase

Based on the above scenario however, it is not clear why Wei was asked to return the goods, so for my analysis i will assume the shop assistant might have made a mistake in the price tag, or probably the offer price was no longer applicable as hence she wanted to get the goods and rescan with new price which most probably was higher. in this case Wei has the right to refuse to return the goods and can take action against the store for breach of contract. To support himself Wei can quote section 5 of the contact Act which reads thus "An acceptance may be revoked at any time before the communication of the acceptance is complete as against the acceptor or the proposer, but not afterwards." He can also have his Friend to testify or become his witness and in addition one important case which might be helpful due to similar facts shared in the sense that the revocation of offer was made after acceptance is the "Byrne v. Van Tienhoven ".

So in conclusion Wei can try to establish the facts of why he should return the goods, only if it is something that is against the agreement then he can consider but based strictly on the terms and conditions of sale as stated already above, but if its for other reasons that he deemed will be against his agreement with the shop then he can refuse to return the goods and sue the shop for their breach of loyalty and trust to the customer

CONTRACT LAW (CASE STUDY)

MAC manufactures and installs insulated window-frame units. Installation comprises about 15% of MAC’s total price for the units. Wong, a commercial builder, saw a MAC advertisement and mailed an order for 30 window frames, at $100 per frame, for a total order of $3000. He also wrote on his order, “Must have your guarantee of installation within 15 days due to construction deadlines.”

MAC immediately sent Wong an “Acknowledgment of Order,” listing the windows and price as per Wong’s order, and including a $200 shipping charge. Shipping costs are customarily borne by the buyer of window-frame units. At the bottom of the MAC form was printed the following: “Installation guaranteed within 60 days.” Also printed in bold and conspicuous type was the following: “All warranties of merchantability and fitness are hereby expressly disclaimed.” Finally, the form stated, “Contract of Sale Subject to Terms Contained Herein.”

MAC installed the windows 55 days after the order was placed and Wong incurred several delay-related expenses. MAC \later submitted a bill for the full amount shown on the “Acknowledgment of Order” form. Wong refused to pay the $200 shipping charges. He also discovered that because of a manufacturing defect, the glass in the windows did not fit snugly, permitting rain to leak through.

MAC sued Wong for the full price shown on the “Acknowledgment of Order” form. Wong counterclaimed against MAC for damages resulting from the delayed installation and unmerchantable quality of the windows.

How should the court rule on MAC’s and Wong’s actions? Discuss

MAC's advertisement is an invitation to treat (ITT) similiar case Partridge v. Crittenden

Wong's order is an offer made to MAC.~This is offer because it is not a requests for more information as Wong has placed order.- His order can be said 2 have pre-conditions that must be satisfied by MAC before accepting the offer. The offer is made subject to the condition and if its not satisfied, the offer may lapse (similiar case Financings Ltd v. Stimson)

On the fact, “Installation guaranteed within 60 days.” Wong only requested that installation be guaranteed within 15 days, this is one important point to the contract but can be considered as condition satisfied as 15 days falls within the 60 day period

MAC's "Acknowledgement of Order" = acceptance- see case Brogden v. Metropolitan Rail Co
Offer + acceptance +legality + consideration = contract; whereby both parties i.e. MAC and Wong will b bound by it. Therefore in this case there was a valid contract

Wong have to pay the $200 shipping fee as it is clearly stated in the contract. However as for the defect, Wong could sue MAC for breach of contract as the products was found to have defects. Wong is allowed to file a case against MAC as their product have caused loss/damage to him. this is an exemption clause where MAC seeking to exclude his liability in the event of any default.the exemption clause by MAC seeking to exclude his liability in case of any default can be argued up based on Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA) and may end up helping Mr Wong to win the suit.