Table of content Content | Page | 1. Question 2………………………………………………………………. 2. Question 3 ……………………………………………………………… 3. Question 5 ……………………………………………………………… 4. Question 6 ……………………………………………………………… | 24912 |

Question 1
In Malaysia the governing law that addresses partnership matters is provided in the Partnership Act 1961. a) The general rule for the extent of a partner’s liability is that every partner in a firm is liable jointly with the other partners for all debts and obligations of the firm incurred while he is a partner. Discuss.

b) What are the ways in which a partnership may be dissolved?

Question 2
Fact of case: a. Mr. Pity bought a BMW (reg. no. KK 8888) from Mr. Kaya at purchase price of RM 32,000.00. b. …show more content…

Pokok because: 1. The employer just taking a part of the Section 15(2) Employment Act 1955 (as underline above). 2. Leave requested by Mr. Pokok on 26 November 1996 is not following the company procedure due to the leave is taken on 23, 24, 25 and 26 November 1996. According to company procedure, the leave should be applied one (1) week before the leave. 3. The reason of leave applied by Mr. Pokok is unreasonable.

If we look at the reasons of terminating Mr. Pokok, the employer's decision is not solid and not giving any chances to Mr. Pokok to defend himself. It is clearly found that the employer does not investigate to confirm Mr. Pokok has informed or attempted to inform his employer of such excuse prior to or at the earliest opportunity during his absence (the bold part of Section 15(2) Employment Act 1955.

This is because Mr. Pokok had applied for leave on 23 November 1996 and sends the leave memo by his friend to his supervisor and assumes his leave is approved. Yes, it is still not following the procedure but Mr. Pokok is not planning for the leave. He has to apply it just because of sudden event arises. The company procedure may apply for planned leaves but not in sudden cases.

Regarding the absence on 26 November 1996, Mr. Pokok claimed that he has informed his officer