Introduction

Globalization has prompted companies to expand in to other markets and partner with individuals that haveenhanced the importance of rules and regulations in the country to ensure smooth running of business and fulfillment of contracts by both the parties (Beatty, 2013). The present paper will analyze a case study and assess the effectiveness of the civil laws in Malaysia. As per the case, an accountant has misguided one of these clients that have made her loose large amount in the market. Therefore the claimant has filed a case of negligence against the accountant. As per the Malaysia Civil Law 1956, the negligence comes under Law of Trot.

Case Study:

The present paper case study involves an accountant (Imran) and also an investment advisor running an accountancy firm. Seeking investment advice about investing in a new oil and gas company Lisa meets Imran and been advised and assured to invest by the accountant, Lisa invests in the company about RM200, 000. After two weeks, the company goes into liquidation and Lisa losses all the money.

About Law of Tort

The law of tortis branch or part of civil (private) law. A civil wrong committed against an individual or property belonging to individual, contrary to the wrong doing against a state which is crime is a tort.Following the case of Donoghue VS Stevenson case (1932)AC 562 and Acts of Parliament the rights and duties of the individuals law of tort begun and further developed with the cases of 19^th century (Browne, 2013). When a wrong have been done against individual, the affected individual (the claimant) files a case against the individual who committed wrong (the defendant) sued in civil courts and the defendant been charged against civil action, will be liable to pay the compensation or damages to the claimant.

As per the Law of Trot, any case of negligence the important elements that needs to be considered are duty of care where there should be a wrongful or unauthorized act by the defendant, Apart from that the act or omission of act should impact the interests or right of the claimant (Brown, 2016). The last one is that the act or omission of act should have caused some injury or damage to the other party.

Duty of Care

The primary test to understand the occurrence of duty of care is to implement neighborhood principle objective test where a reasonable man would react in the same way the defendant has reacted whose actions had an adverse effect on the plaintiff, if it is positive then the defendant party owes duty of care to claimant (Browne, 2015). A duty of care is a legal obligation that is implemented to avoid any kind of harm that is reasonably foreseeable and predicted in case of no care.  The proximity of the relations should be present between the people to establish duty of care, for example relationship of doctor and patient. As per Civil Liability Act 1936, the qualifications of duty of care are good Samaritans where people act reasonably in case of emergency without any payment are normally exempted from liability as their behaviour do not present recklessness. Firstly, the damage caused to the claimant would be foreseen by the defendant, no duty of care if the damage could not be foreseeable.Bourhill v Young (1943), Langley v Dray(1998).Secondly, a neighborhood or proximity relationship between the defendant and claimant,  relationship doesn’t mean physical or contractual instead control of defendant’s responsibility over the created situation. Thirdly, it is just, fair and reasonable for imposing the law of new duty of care in that situation.

Breach of Duty of care

After determined that the defendant has owned duty to the other party, there is a need to establish if there is a breach of duty of care by the party that has lead to damages to the other party. A breach is committed in case the defendant has failed to act or acted that falls beneath minimum of care displayed by the defendant that would have otherwise done by any reasonable man.  Therefore to determine breach of contract it needs to be assess if any reasonable ma would have acted the same way the defendant has acted, however in case of a negative answer it is determined the defendant has breached the duty of care.

Remedies

After determining the breach of duty of care, the court will determine the remedies or damages due to breach of duty of care due to which the claimant has suffered losses.  Therefore as per the negligence Act under section 101 Malaysian Evidence Act 1950, the proof of negligence and the standard proof is balanced on the probability that proves that the defendant is negligent towards the client (Simons, 2016). However in certain cases claimant will find it difficult to prove negligence that will force the cline to rely on Res Ipsa Loquitor that do not make the defendant automatically liable in case of negligence. Therefore Under Civil law 1956, the negligent actions can be personal injury, trespass, assault, medical negligence, battery, false misrepresentation, harassment or financial damages..

References

Beatty, J.F., Samuelson, S.S. and Abril, P.S., 2018. Essentials of Business Law.Cengage Learning.

Browne, M.N., Herron, D.J., Dhooge, L.J., Kubasek, N.K. and Barkacs, L.L., 2016. Dynamic business law.McGraw-Hill Education.

Cartwright, J. (2016). Contract law: An introduction to the English law of contract for the civil lawyer. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Brown, E.F., 2016. Lessons from efforts to manage the shift of pensions to defined contribution plans in the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom. American Business Law Journal, 53(2), pp.315-382.

Browne, M.N., Herron, D.J., Dhooge, L.J., Kubasek, N.K. and Barkacs, L.L., 2016. Dynamic business law.McGraw-Hill Education.

Law, J. ed., 2016. A dictionary of business and management.Oxford University Press.

Lindsey, T. and Steiner, K., 2012. Islam, Law and the State in Southeast Asia: Malaysia and Brunei: Volume 3.

Loafman, L. and Altman, B.W., 2014. Going online: Building your business law course using the Quality Matters Rubric. Journal of Legal Studies Education, 31(1), pp.21-54.

Roach, L., 2016. Card and James’ Business Law.Oxford University Press.

Simons, J. (2014). The end of’unfairness’ in commercial contracts: Proposed extension of’unfair contract terms’ laws to business to business transactions. Governance Directions, 66(7), 431.

Van Uytsel, S. and Wrbka, S. eds., 2016. Networked governance, transnational business and the law.Springer.