​KembaraXtra – Legal Terms – Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (Law Lords)


The Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, commonly known as the Law Lords, were senior judges appointed to carry out the judicial functions of the House of Lords.


They were appointed as life peers under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 and served as the highest appellate judges in the United Kingdom before constitutional reform.


Under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, these judicial functions were transferred to the newly created Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, separating judicial work from the legislature.

Negotiable Instruments: Transferee Receiving Better Title Than the Transferor
Case Scenario
Ben owns a bearer cheque worth RM5,000. Ahmad steals the cheque and later transfers it to Chong in exchange for a second-hand laptop. Chong honestly believes Ahmad is the true owner of the cheque and has no knowledge that it was stolen. Chong later presents the cheque to the bank for payment.
The issue is whether Chong can obtain legal ownership of the cheque even though Ahmad himself had no lawful title.


Facts 
Q1: Who originally owned the cheque?
A: Ben.
Q2: How did Ahmad obtain the cheque?
A: Ahmad stole it from Ben.
Q3: What did Ahmad do with the cheque?
A: Ahmad transferred it to Chong.
Q4: Did Chong know the cheque was stolen?
A: No. Chong accepted it in good faith.
Q5: Did Chong give value for the cheque?
A: Yes. Chong exchanged his laptop for the cheque.
Q6: What is the legal issue?
A: Whether Chong obtains valid title although Ahmad was a thief.


Application
Normally, under ordinary property law:
nemo dat quod non habet
(“No one can give what they do not have”)
A thief cannot transfer good ownership to another person.
Therefore:

• Ahmad had defective title because he stole the cheque.
• Usually, Chong should also receive defective title.

However, negotiable instruments operate differently.
A bearer cheque is a negotiable instrument. If a person:

• Takes the instrument in good faith,
• Gives value, and
• Has no notice of defects,

that person may become a holder in due course and obtain a better title than the transferor.


Why Must Chong Give Value?
This does not mean Chong literally “buys” a cheque like buying an item in a shop.
“Giving value” simply means:

• Chong gave something in return for receiving the cheque.

Examples of giving value include:

• Exchanging goods (like the laptop),
• Providing services,
• Paying money,
• Cancelling a debt.

For example:

• Ahmad owed Chong RM5,000 and gave the cheque as payment, OR
• Chong gave Ahmad a laptop in exchange for the cheque.

The law protects Chong because:

• He acted honestly,
• He gave something valuable in return,
• He relied on the cheque as genuine.

If Chong received the cheque completely free as a gift, he may not receive the same legal protection as a holder in due course.


Critical Analysis
This example demonstrates the special feature of negotiability.
In ordinary property:

• A thief cannot pass good title.

But with negotiable instruments:

• An innocent holder may obtain better rights than the thief.

This exception exists because negotiable instruments are intended to circulate freely in commerce like money.
Thus:

• Commercial certainty is prioritised,
• Innocent parties are protected,
• Business transactions become more efficient.

Solution to the Case Scenario
✔ Chong can enforce payment of the cheque if:

• He accepted it honestly,
• He gave value,
• He had no knowledge of the theft.

✔ Chong receives a better title than Ahmad even though Ahmad was a thief.
❌ Ben may not recover the cheque from Chong because the law protects a holder in due course.


Key Takeaway
Negotiability allows:

• The transferee of a negotiable instrument
• To obtain a better title than the transferor
• When the transferee acts in good faith and gives value.

➡️ This is one of the most important and unique characteristics of negotiable instruments.

​

Negotiable Instruments: Negotiable Cheque Scenario
Case Scenario
Farid purchases electronic goods worth RM12,000 from Jason. As payment, Farid issues a cheque written:
“Pay Jason or bearer”
Jason later owes money to Kumar for construction services. Instead of paying cash, Jason hands the cheque to Kumar as payment for the debt. Kumar accepts the cheque honestly and deposits it into his bank account. The cheque is accepted because it is negotiable and transferable.
The issue arises whether Kumar has the legal right to use a cheque that was originally issued to Jason.


Facts
Q1: Who issued the cheque?
A: Farid.
Q2: To whom was the cheque originally payable?
A: Jason.
Q3: What wording appeared on the cheque?
A: “Pay Jason or bearer.”
Q4: What did Jason do with the cheque?
A: He transferred it to Kumar to settle a debt.
Q5: Did Kumar accept the cheque in good faith?
A: Yes.
Q6: What legal issue arises?
A: Whether Kumar can legally use and enforce the cheque although it was originally payable to Jason.


Application
A cheque payable to:

• “Bearer,” or
• “Order”

is generally negotiable.
In this case:

• The words “or bearer” make the cheque transferable by delivery.
• Jason was allowed to pass the cheque to Kumar.
• Kumar became the lawful holder of the cheque.

Since Kumar:

• Accepted the cheque honestly,
• Received it as payment for a debt, and
• Had no notice of defects,

➡️ Kumar has the right to present the cheque for payment and sue in his own name if dishonoured.


Critical Analysis
This scenario demonstrates the commercial function of negotiable instruments.
Negotiable cheques:

• Allow smooth circulation of money substitutes,
• Enable debts to be settled efficiently,
• Promote confidence in commercial transactions.

Unlike an “account payee only” cheque:

• A negotiable cheque can move freely from one holder to another.

Thus:

• Jason did not need to cash the cheque first before paying Kumar.
• The cheque itself functioned as a transferable financial instrument.

This flexibility is one of the main advantages of negotiable instruments in business transactions.


Solution to the Case Scenario
✔ Kumar can legally use and enforce the cheque because:

• The cheque was negotiable,
• It contained the words “or bearer,”
• Jason validly transferred it to Kumar.

✔ Kumar becomes the lawful holder and may sue Farid if the cheque is dishonoured.


Key Takeaway
A negotiable cheque:

• Can be transferred from one person to another,
• Allows the transferee to sue in their own name,
• Functions as a substitute for money in commercial transactions.

➡️ Therefore, negotiable cheques promote flexibility and efficiency in trade and commerce.

​

KembaraXtra – Legal Terms – Lord Advocate
The Lord Advocate is the chief legal officer of the Crown in Scotland. The role is broadly equivalent to that of the Attorney General for England and Wales in relation to English law.
The office carries major responsibility for criminal prosecutions in Scotland. The Lord Advocate oversees the prosecution system with assistance from solicitors general, advocates depute, and procurators fiscal.
Traditionally, the Lord Advocate is associated with the governing political party, although the officeholder may or may not sit in Parliament. The position combines legal, constitutional, and prosecutorial responsibilities.

​

Negotiable Instruments: Definition
A negotiable instrument is a formal written legal document containing:

• an unconditional promise or order to pay money, and
• the characteristic of negotiability, meaning it can be transferred from one person to another either by delivery or by endorsement and delivery.

The person who receives the instrument (transferee) may:

1. obtain the right to payment in their own name, and
2. in certain circumstances, obtain a better title than the transferor if they take the instrument in good faith and for value.

Negotiable instruments are widely used in trade and commerce because they function as substitutes for money and facilitate smooth commercial transactions.


Key Characteristics of Negotiable Instruments
1. Transferability
The instrument can be transferred:

• by delivery (for bearer instruments), or
• by endorsement and delivery (for order instruments).

2. Right to Sue
The holder or transferee may sue in their own name without involving previous holders.


3. Better Title (Negotiability)
A holder in due course who:

• takes the instrument in good faith,
• gives value, and
• has no notice of defects,

may obtain a better title than the transferor.


Difference Between Transferability and Negotiability

• Transferability means ownership can pass from one person to another.
• Negotiability means the transferee may obtain a better title than the transferor.

Thus:
All negotiable instruments are transferable, but not all transferable instruments are negotiable.


Examples of Negotiable Instruments

1. Cheques
2. Bills of exchange
3. Promissory notes
4. Bank drafts
5. Treasury bills
6. Negotiable certificates of deposit

Simple Explanation
A negotiable instrument is basically:
A transferable document representing money, which allows the holder to claim payment and, in some cases, obtain stronger rights than the previous holder.

​

KembaraXtra – Legal Terms – Loss Leader
A loss leader is a product or service sold below cost price in order to attract customers. Businesses use this strategy to encourage consumers to purchase additional profitable items.
Although the practice is generally lawful, competition law places restrictions on dominant companies that use below-cost pricing to eliminate competitors. Such conduct may amount to predatory pricing under the Competition Act 1998 and EU competition rules.
For businesses without dominant market power, pricing freedom is broader. However, resale pricing restrictions imposed on customers may still raise legal concerns under competition law principles.

​

​KembaraXtra – Indian Evidence Law –Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam-Difference between Admission and Confession
1. Definition

• Admission: Statement (oral, written, or electronic) suggesting an inference about liability or relevant fact.
• Confession: Statement (oral or written) that is a direct admission of guilt.

2. By Whom Made

• Admission: Made by persons under Sections 16–18 (parties, agents, etc.), including the accused.
• Confession: Made generally by the accused or co-accused.

3. Nature (Genus vs Species)

• Admission: Genus (broader concept).
• Confession: Species of admission (narrower, specific to guilt).

4. Nature of Evidence

• Admission:
  • Substantive evidence
  • Not conclusive proof (Section 25)
• Confession:
  • Judicial confession = strong substantive evidence
  • Extra-judicial confession = weak, needs caution
  • Usually requires corroboration

5. Proceedings Where Used

• Admission: Used in both civil and criminal cases
• Confession: Used mainly in criminal cases

6. Use in Favour of Maker

• Admission:
  • Can be used in favour of maker in exceptional cases (Section 19)
• Confession:
  • Cannot be used in favour of the accused

7. Co-Accused Situation

• Admission:
  • Admissible only against maker
  • Not against co-accused
• Confession:
  • May be considered against co-accused if jointly tried (Section 24)
  • Still weak evidence

8. Effect of Voluntary Statement

• Admission:
  • May operate as estoppel
• Confession:
  • Voluntary confession can lead to conviction

Quick Memory Tip👉 All confessions are admissions, but not all admissions are confessions.

KembaraXtra – Legal Terms – Licensee
A licensee is a person who has been granted permission to carry out an activity that would otherwise be unlawful. This commonly includes individuals authorized by public authorities to sell alcohol or those permitted to use intellectual property such as patents.
In a broader sense, a licensee is anyone who is lawfully allowed to do something that requires authorization. The scope of the licence determines the extent of the rights granted and any conditions attached.
In land law, a licensee is someone who enters or uses land with the consent of the occupier. This permission may be express or implied, but it does not create any proprietary interest in the land.

​

​KembaraXtra – Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam – Difference between Admission and Confession
1. Use in Favour of Maker

• Admission:
  • Can be used in favour of the maker in exceptional cases (Section 19).
• Confession:
  • Cannot be used in favour of the accused.

2. Statement by Co-Accused

• Admission:
  • Admissible only against the maker
  • Not admissible against co-accused even if jointly tried
• Confession:
  • May be taken into consideration against co-accused only when jointly tried
  • Must clearly amount to a confession

3. Effect of Voluntary Statement

• Admission:
  • Voluntary admission may operate as estoppel
• Confession:
  • Voluntary confession may lead to conviction

Quick Recall Line👉 Admission may help the maker; confession usually harms the maker.

​KembaraXtra – Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam – Difference between Judicial Confession and Extra-Judicial Confession
1. Meaning

• Judicial Confession:
  • Made before a Magistrate or Court under BNSS during investigation or trial.
• Extra-Judicial Confession:
  • Made outside court, i.e., to any private person or authority other than Magistrate/Court.

2. Evidentiary Value

• Judicial Confession:
  • Strong substantive evidence
  • Recorded formally under legal provisions
• Extra-Judicial Confession:
  • Weak evidence
  • Requires careful scrutiny

3. Conviction

• Judicial Confession:
  • Conviction is safe even without corroboration if voluntary and true
• Extra-Judicial Confession:
  • Conviction legally possible without corroboration,
  • But not safe in practice without corroboration

4. Method of Proof

• Judicial Confession:
  • No need to call Magistrate/Court as witness
  • Already recorded officially
• Extra-Judicial Confession:
  • Must be proved by calling the person before whom confession was made

5. Admissibility / Reliance

• Judicial Confession:
  • Can be relied upon independently if voluntary and true
• Extra-Judicial Confession:
  • Cannot be solely relied upon unless corroborated

Quick Recall Line👉 Judicial confession = strong and reliable; Extra-judicial confession = weak and needs support.