2nd speaker for respondent Arguments Grounds: to transfer the liability to principal (President of the Association of Repairers of Carrier

Air Conditioner Unit) [1] According to section 135 Contract Act 1950, an agent is a person employed to do an act or represent another party in dealing with third parties. The person whom is represented is called the principal. Here, my client, MR. Loh Ah Seng, is the agent for the Member of Association of Repairers of Carrier Air Conditioner Unit to provide services to third parties, MR. Albert Wong. The employer of my client is President of the Association of Repairers of Carrier Air Conditioner Unit [2] According to section 175 Contract Act 1950, that the employer of an agent is bound to indemnify him against the consequences of all lawful acts done by the agent in exercise of the authority conferred upon him. As claimed by the appellants counsels, my client had made MR. Albert Wong to bear the loss amount of RM5520.00 for requesting other firm to repair and service his offices air conditioner on July 2006 and here, MR. Albert Wong requested to file a court case on my client to claim compensation and remedies towards his losses due to my clients negligence. However, as I refer to section 175 Contract Act 1950, that my client is only an agent for the President of the Association of Repairers of Carrier Air Conditioner Unit. If agreed by the court that my client did neglected the services on MR. Albert Wongs office air conditioner, the appellant should file a court case on the President of the Association of Repairers of Carrier Air Conditioner Unit instead of my client as my client is only an agent and he is totally innocent in this case. The President of the Association of Repairers of Carrier Air Conditioner Unit is the party shall be claimed remedies. [3] plus, according to section 176 Contract Act 1950, if an agent does an act in a good faith, then the employer is liable to indemnify the agent against the consequences of that act, if it causes an injury to the right of third parties. My client had done his act in good faith when he and the appellant sign the main contract. This is proven when he did service the appellants office air conditioner after a week of the contract date. Around 7 months later, appellant claimed that he had paid RM5520.00 to the other firm for repairing and servicing his offices air conditioner and made him suffered 10 days without using air conditioner. Therefore, the appellant should claim remedies from his employer that is the President of the Association of Repairers of Carrier Air Conditioner Unit and not from my client. In the case of Yeo Tin Sang v. Lim Choo Kee (1961) MLJ 23, where the court held that the employer are liable if his agents does the act which is in the scope of duty

but have causes losses to the third party, even though the act has been done in a good faith or bone fide. In the case of Lim Soo Seng v. Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang [1990] 1 MLJ 22, Edgar Joseph Jr.H had use the officious bystander test. The judge said that, in the contract of service, there is a implied rules which require the employer to indemnify his employee where his employees causes losses or damages to the third parties.