LAW ON SALE OF GOODs

Cases of

LIM CHUI LAI v. ZENO LTD. [1964] 30M.L.J 314

 Nemo dat quod non habet literally meaning that "no one can give what he/she doesn't have". In an easier way to explain it, any sale of possession from someone who doesn't have the ownership, unless there is a permission of the right owner to sale. "Sale by person not the owner"  

Let's look at the case study, LIM CHUI LAI v. ZENO LTD to see what was happened previously in "Sale by person not the owner" situation and what were the judgments based on the issue.

Zeno LTD (Z) entered a contract to supply raw materials to Ahmad (3rd party) and delivered it to the site. Ahmad did not pay for the materials to Z. Later on he sold the materials to Lim and took the money for himself. Z brought an action to the court as they claimed they were the owner of the materials and did not authorize any transaction between Ahmad and Lim.

     Facts: 

      The chairman of the respondent company's board of directors entered into an agreement with a contractor, named Ahmad.  Ahmad also declared to the Authority of Petaling Jaya that the respondent company was the company to supply the construction material; thereby he also entered in a secured contract with the authority that to carrying out financing of his company's project. Thereafter, the respondent company bought the material and sent it to the construction site.

   

     Not so far from the time after contract, the respondent company realized that the Ahmad had some troubles with the authority of Petaling Jaya, and it caused to stop the contract. The respondent company told the authority that the material on the construction site was belonging to them and they also would sell them. 

   

     Somehow, the respondent company found out that the material delivered to Ahmad was no longer in the construction site, and Ahmad was the person who sold the material to the appellant for RM14,000 of which Ahmad get half of it as the payment.

    

The respondent company then requires the costs of material from the appellant.

Appellant argued that:

1. The respondent had delivered the material to Ahmad. So, Ahmad had to be deserved the name for the owner of the material. 

2. The material were the property of the partnership of the respondent and Ahmad. Therefore, Ahmad has the right to sell them.

    Held: 

      Ahmad was not the owner of the property, because the respondent was merely placing the material for the purpose of proceeding construction. Therefore, Ahmad was merely a bailer, but not the owner when the time he sold to the appellant.  Since, Ahmad was not the owner, he had neither the title nor the authority to sell the property. 

      unless According to Sale of Good Acts 1957, section 27, where goods are sold by a person who is not the owner thereof or who does not sell them under the authority or with the consent of the owner, the buyer acquires no better title to the goods than the seller had, unless the owner of the goods is by his conduct precluded from denying the authority to sell.

Review to the historical case, Farquharson Brother & Co. v. C.King [1920] A.C.325

     Although, Ahmad insured the good, but it doesn't mean that he was the owner. So, there was nothing a bailer could to do with the material. Therefore, appeal dismissed. 

Opinion

The appellant should take serious on buy the goods from second or third person in the industry because them was not the owner of the goods. Written contract should be file or in others word is a receipt of the payment to the goods.  Because the sales will take advantage and counterfeit the payment and take a half of the payment. That is what Ahmad does with the Zeno companies. Based on the law Appellant cannot appeal because the contract is not illegal. Zeno can take their own goods from the appellant.

Malaysian Legal System

CASES OF

ERUTHIAM AROKIASAMY v. B M ENTERPRISE SDN BHD [2006] 2 ILR 852

INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR

AWARD NO. 622 OF 2006

MOHD AMIN FIRDAUS ABDULLAH

Summary

The industrial Court, constituted under the Industrial Relation Act 1967, deals primarily with trade disputes and therefore has jurisdiction own matters concerning employers, employees and trade unions. Industrial Court is an under superior court in Malaysia. My purpose to analysis this case is to know about the power of judgement and how strong the law in the Industrial Court.

Facts of the case:

The claimant, a lorry driver, had complained to his employer/company about having to work overtime but not being paid. According to the claimant, he was often asked to work beyond 5pm on weekdays and beyond 1pm on Saturdays. The company admitted to not according any overtime payment to the claimant, but contended that the claimant was forced to work overtime because of his own bad time management. Specifically, it was alleged that the claimant had chosen the wrong routes to deliver the goods, which could otherwise be delivered within his working hours.

The claimant was however persistent in the complaints, giving various reasons and justifications. The company, however, took the claimant's behavior in very negative light, and so, by letter dated 26 November 2001, terminated the claimant's services on the ground that the claimant had shown a "lackadaisical work attitude not acceptable to the company". At the hearing, the company sought to plead another reason for the dismissal, namely that the claimant was found to be redundant and had to be retrenched. The issue was whether the termination, on the facts, was with just cause or excuse.

Held:

On the question of retrenchment, all the three witnesses produced by the company, especially its Managing Director did not give a shred of evidence concerning the recession that was supposed to have affected the company. This reason was therefore not a bona fide one. The Court perused the definition in the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary which defined "lackadaisical" as "not showing enough care or enthusiasm". It further observed that this was the sole ground given in the termination letter, namely "due to your work attitude or lackadaisical attitude". Accordingly, the Court was of the view that the Claimant had not committed any misconduct to justify a dismissal.

The Court held that a workman who does not show enough care or enthusiasm in his work but nonetheless plods on with the work does not necessarily commit misconduct. The Court further observed that the written submission of the company was sprinkled with words of falsehood, fabrication, lies and the like which were not pleaded. The company, in the result, had failed to prove poor performance which was the reason cited for the dismissal. Although the company claimed to have verbally warned the claimant for his "lackadaisical attitude' on numerous occasions, the company witnesses did not adduce an iota of evidence to support this. For the above reasons the Court held that upon the evidence and the arguments adduced, the company had failed to discharge the burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that the dismissal was with just cause or excuse. On the facts and in the circumstances, the Court held that company's basic argument that the claimant had shown poor time management and had taken the wrong routes in carrying out his deliveries could not hold water.

The Court proceeded to hold that where a workman has repeatedly complained to his employer about what appears to be legitimate grievances relating to having worked contrary to a fundamental term of his contract of service, but the latter had remained silent and did not respond and instead cut short the employee's employment by suddenly issuing a termination letter, the conclusion could only be that the complaint had merit or some merits. The Company was accordingly held to have dismissed the Claimant without just cause or excuse quashed.

Opinion

For my opinion the company of the claimant should be flexible based on managing employees shift because if the companies take serious about time the employees will not request work shift based on their opinion. Communication between the employees is very important to achieve want and need. Besides that give and benefit also prevent the employees to come to duties late. Terminated employees is the most hard to do because everyone has special protection in Law.

Are you risk-taker or not?

Are you risk-taker or not?
Talk about risk-taker in the business it mean you are giving your life on the business that you not really confirm that will bring you large of profit or not. Who is the person that risktaker? Normally people that risk-taker is create an new empire in the industry and invest mostly all of their money to build the business from the management till every single of department. Then them don't know whether their product or service get intention or interactive to the people surround them or not... but if you really brave and know your business gonna be viral in the industry keep moving forward organised it.
Type of people or who is not risk-taker businessman.
People who are invest small capital in their company or just build SME industry such as small stall that just only focus on one thing e.g nasi kerabu or nasi lemak for their signature dish. But did you agree that the people that label us not risktaker business is also inverst thousands of money to buy the material to start the business. Why I say that auntie that sale nasi lemak in the street is not risk-taker because if their unlucky on there business there can build again the new want easily because there just involve in small bankruptcy. People that take the risk is involved with large of capital sometime give their house or land to do loan...

ARE YOU AGREE?

Leadership In Organization Research

( Benefit for study that take Business Research subject this semester.I just sharing the article that i analysis and try to find five important question need to be solve) 

Abstract

Authentic leadership occurs when individuals enact their true selves in their role as a leader. This article examines the role of authentic follower-ship in the previously established relationship between authentic leadership and follower in-role and extra role performance behaviors. Consideration of followers who enact their true selves is important to understand how authentic leadership fosters follower self-determined work motivation and thus work role performance. Using self-determination theory (SDT) as a guiding framework, the authors propose that authentic leadership, authentic followership, and their interplay are positively related to the satisfaction of followers’ basic needs, which, in turn, are positively related to follower work role performance. The authors conducted a survey study of 30 leaders and 252 followers in 25 Belgian service companies. The results provide evidence of positive relationship for both authentic leadership and authentic followership with follower basic need satisfaction in a cross level model where authentic leadership was aggregated to the group level of analysis. Cross level interaction results indicated that authentic leadership strengthened the relationship between authentic followership and follower basic need satisfaction. Follower basic need satisfaction was shown to mediate the relationship of authentic leadership and authentic followership with follower work role performance. A test of mediated moderation further demonstrated that basic need satisfaction mediates the interaction of authentic leadership and authentic followership on follower work role performance. The implications for leadership research and practice are explored.

1.      Provide a complete citation of the article (Title, authors, journal, volume, year and pages).

Tittle: Authentic Leadership, Authentic Followership, Basic Need Satisfaction, and Work Role Performance: A Cross-Level Study

Journal of Management published online 27 August 2012/ 22 pages

Author: Hannes Leroy KU Leuven, University of Calgary Frederik Anseel Ghent University William L. Gardner Texas Tech University Luc Sels KU Leuven

DOI: 10.1177/0149206312457822

2.      Summarize the major result.

We analyzed the data using the Mplus statistical package (Muthén & Muthén, 1998– 2012). First, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis on our measurement model. Next, because multilevel structural equation models are too parameter intensive for our data (Grizzle et al., 2009),1 we specified a multilevel path model to test the hypothesized structural relationships. This multilevel path model, however, had only one degree of freedom. Because the constraint of only one degree of freedom prevented a meaningful test of model fit, we excluded information on model fit. When excluding information on fit indices, the results of a multilevel path model are similar to those obtained through hierarchical linear modeling (HLM; Grizzle et al., 2009). To assess our hypothesized cross-level model, we followed the procedures described by Hoffmann (1997) and Hoffmann, Griffin, and Gavin (2000) and adopted by Walumbwa and colleagues (2010). Specifically, we first tested the main and mediating effects of authentic followership and authentic leadership on basic need satisfaction. In HLM terminology, this consists of an intercept as outcome model. The mediating effects were established by testing alternative models that specify a direct link among authentic leadership, authentic followership, and follower work role performance (James, Mulaik, & Brett, 2006; Preacher, Zhang, & Zyphur, 2011). These alternative models indicate whether a residual direct effect remains after already including basic need satisfaction in the model. Next, we examined cross-level interaction effects by testing whether authentic leadership moderates the relationship between authentic followership and basic need satisfaction at the group level of analysis. This consists of an intercept and slope as outcome model. We added between-group interactions to control for spurious cross-level interaction effects (Hoffmann, 1997; Hoffmann & Gavin, 1998). To assess Hypothesis 5, we tested whether basic need satisfaction mediates the interaction effect of authentic leadership and authentic followership on follower work role performance. This consists of a test of mediated moderation (Muller, Descartes, Judd, & Yzerbyt, 2005). We followed the procedures recommended by Bauer, Preacher, and Gil (2006) to assess the degree to which the indirect effect of authentic followership on follower work role performance (via basic need satisfaction) differs for low and high levels of authentic leadership. Finally, because the teams in our data set are further nested within organizations, we accounted for nonindependence in our data at the organizational level by including the “type = COMPLEX” command in Mplus. This command corrects standard errors and the chi-square test of model fit for nonindependence of observations (Satorra, 2000).

3.      What does the author say is the major contribution of the study?

Our findings suggest several avenues for future investigations. First, research that examines how authentic leadership and authentic followership are influenced by the overall climate and culture of the organization would be beneficial. Prior theoretical and empirical work suggests that authentic leadership supports and is supported by a positive, ethical, and inclusive work climate or culture (Gardner et al., 2005; Walumbwa et al., 2008). On one hand, we expect authentic leadership and authentic followership to play key roles in helping to create and maintain a more authentic organizational culture and climate. On the other hand, we expect that a more authentic organizational climate and culture may strengthen the effects of authentic leadership and authentic followership on work-related outcomes. Hence, future research is needed to examine the complex interplay between these arenas for authenticity. Second, more research is needed to clarify how the variables included in our study relate to follower feelings of work engagement. Walumbwa and associates (2010) demonstrated that authentic leadership fosters work engagement through follower empowerment and identification. This raises the question of how authentic followership and follower basic need satisfaction relate to follower work engagement. Previous work suggests that work engagement (a) arises from the authentic expression of the self at work (Kahn, 1990), (b) is driven by leader behaviors that create a trusting and psychologically safe environment (May, Gilson, & Harter, 2004), and (c) is an important driver of follower job performance (Rich, LePine, & Crawford, 2010). In studying these relationships, future research should also explore how authentic followership and follower basic need satisfaction account for variance in work engagement over and above that attributable to follower feelings of identification with the leader and follower feelings of empowerment (Walumbwa et al., 2010). Third, SDT posits that the needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are fundamental in that every human being benefits from their satisfaction (Deci & Ryan, 2000). This does not imply that SDT assumes that individual differences in the strength of these needs do not exist, however. For example, Schüler, Sheldon, and Fröhlich (2010) demonstrated that an implicit measure of the need for achievement moderates the relationship between the satisfaction of the need for competence and subsequent motivation to engage in sports activities. Future research that examines the degree to which implicit needs (such as the need for affiliation) positively moderate the relationships between the satisfaction of basic needs (such as the need for relatedness) and work role performance would be beneficial. Fourth, additional research that extends our results by exploring the antecedents of authentic functioning of leaders and followers is needed. SDT suggests that an environment that does not support self-determination may frustrate followers’ basic needs (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Continued need frustration may make an individual’s self-esteem more fragile and thereby contribute to more ego-defensive and less authentic behaviors (Kernis & Goldman, 2006). Future studies could explore how key role models (e.g., parents, teachers, siblings) foster fragile versus secure self-esteem at early stages in one’s development (Hannah & Avolio, 2010). This does not mean that individuals are unable to develop more secure selfesteem at a later stage in life (e.g., in the workplace). In this regard, SDT has argued that mindfulness may serve as a foundation of authentic functioning (Kernis & Goldman, 2006). By maintaining a receptive attention to and awareness of experiences in the present moment, mindful persons are more likely to be open and nondefensive (Kernis & Goldman, 2006; Lakey et al., 2008). Hence, another promising avenue for future research would be to examine the utility of mindfulness training as a tool for enhancing authentic functioning and the processes whereby it operates.

4.      What are the major theories that it examines (be sure to briefly explain the theory)?

Discussion

 This study set out to investigate how authentic followership and follower basic need satisfaction can enhance our understanding of previous research into the relationshipbetween authentic leadership and follower performance (Hmieleski et al., 2011; Walumbwa et al., 2008; Walumbwa et al., 2010; Walumbwa et al., 2011). Using SDT (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Gagné & Deci, 2005) as a guiding framework, we sought to examine previously underexplored mechanisms to shed new light on the unique relationships of authentic leadership with follower processes and performance, beyond the role of other positive leadership considerations (e.g., leader–member social exchange). Overall, we found support for our hypothesized model. First, we found evidence for a positive relationship between authentic followership and follower basic need satisfaction (Hypothesis 1). This result provides support for the idea that the authentic functioning of followers is related to basic need satisfaction (Ilies et al., 2005; Kernis & Goldman, 2006): Followers who show their true selves in the workplace are more likely to feel that their work-related behavior resonates with who they are. Second, we found a positive relationship between authentic leadership and follower basic need satisfaction (Hypothesis 2). Leaders who are less likely to engage in ego-defensive behaviors and instead put their true self into play are more likely to satisfy follower basic needs. Thus, our findings provide initial support for the idea that authentic leadership also makes it more likely that followers come to feel that they are the author of their work-related behavior through the satisfaction of their basic needs (Gardner et al., 2005; Ilies et al., 2005). Third, we found that the interaction between authentic leadership and authentic followership is positively related to follower basic need satisfaction (Hypothesis 3). Specifically, authentic behavior on the part of followers is more likely to be positively related to basic need satisfaction when those behaviors are supported by authentic leader behaviors. This interaction was shown to be synergistic, in that the combination of authentic leadership and authentic followership is associated with higher levels of basic need satisfaction. Finally, we found that basic need satisfaction mediates the positive relationships of authentic followership (Hypothesis 4) and authentic leadership (Hypothesis 5), and their interaction (Hypothesis 6), with follower work role performance. This finding confirms that the satisfaction of these needs promotes motivation that is rooted within a core and stable sense of self. Hence, basic need satisfaction helps us understand how and why authentic followership and authentic leadership are related to performance behaviors that are important in an unstable work environment (Griffin et al., 2007). Overall these findings provide several contributions to the study of authentic leadership. By explicating the role of authentic followership within authentic leadership, it helps to better explain how authentic leadership fosters follower autonomous work motivation and associated improvements in work role performance (Gardner et al., 2005; Ilies et al., 2005). By drawing extensively from SDT, we have advanced a new perspective on authentic leadership that clarifies how authentic leadership and authentic followership combine to coproduce follower motivation and behavior (Shamir, 2007). That is, such outcomes are shown to be a function not only of the leader, but equally of the person(s) being led (Avolio, 2007; Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber, 2009; Lord, Brown, & Freiberg, 1999). The current findings also clarify the position of authentic leadership vis-à-vis other theories of positive leadership (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). While previous research has shown that authentic leadership accounts for incremental variance in outcomes beyond ethical and transformational leadership (Hannah et al., 2011; Walumbwa et al., 2008; Walumbwa et al., 2011), it has remained silent regarding the unique processes through which authentic leadership influences follower performance. For example, the mechanisms of follower empowerment and identification with the leader that Walumbwa and colleagues (2010) have shown to be operative for authentic leadership are similar to those that are manifest within transformational leadership (Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003). However, whereas transformational leadership is argued to “transform followers into leaders,” authentic leadership is posited to create a context within which “followers can be true to the self.” By focusing on authentic followership per se, this study provides initial insights into the unique processes whereby authentic leadership relates to follower outcomes. However, additional research is needed to further clarify these effects and contrast authentic leadership with other forms of positive leadership.

5.      What is the research methodology (sample size, independent variables, dependent variables and how they were measured)?

Participants and Procedure

We collected data in 25 Belgian organizations within service industries. Participating companies were small- to medium-sized firms. Within the chosen organizations, our sampling design further focused on selecting followers and leaders from established teams. We considered a team to be composed of one team leader and a minimum of four team members who reported directly to the leader. Human resource representatives provided the e-mail addresses of 345 followers and 49 team leaders to the researchers and informed the team leaders and team members about the study. We contacted respondents through e-mail, asked them to complete a web-based survey, and followed up with a reminder after two weeks. To enable us to match the data of followers with that of their leaders, respondents were sent unique Internet addresses that were linked to their e-mail addresses. Respondents were informed of this procedure but assured that, because only aggregated results would be reported back to the organizations, it would not be possible to identify data provided by individual respondents. We administered the survey in two stages (Mitchell & James, 2001). At Stage 1, a total of 252 (73%) followers completed the survey. At Stage 2, one month later, team leaders were asked to rate the performance of followers during the past month. Participating companies asked us to restrict leader-rated performance to four randomly selected team members to avoid placing excessive work demands on the selected leaders. After sending reminders, completed survey data were obtained from a total of 30 team leaders (61%). The total number of team members for whom leader performance ratings were provided was 118. The average number of years that our sample of leaders had served as the leader of their team was 5.50 years (SD = 5.31). Of the leaders, 70% held graduate degrees, 60% were men, and their mean age was 40 years (SD = 7.99). On average, the organizational tenure of our sample of team members was 9.95 years (SD = 8.93) and their mean age was 36.26 years (SD = 9.34). Of the followers, 37% held graduate degrees and 70% were women. To assess the potential effects of nonresponse bias, we tested for differences between the study variables for followers whose leaders did and did not participate at Stage 2. No significant (p > .05) differences were obtained.

 Measures

Authentic leadership. We used the 16-item Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ) developed and validated by Walumbwa and colleagues (2008) to measure authentic leadership. Followers were asked to rate the frequency of authentic leadership behaviors exhibited by the leader on a 5-point Likert-type scale, using anchors ranging from never to almost always. Sample items include “Seeks feedback to improve interactions with others” (self-awareness), “Solicits views that challenge his or her deeply held positions” (balanced processing), “Says exactly what he or she means” (relational transparency), and “Demonstrates beliefs that are consistent with actions” (internalized moral perspective). The Cronbach’s alpha for the ALQ obtained in our study was .95. Because our interest lies in authentic leadership behaviors as they are displayed to different work teams, we averaged this measure within work groups. In support of our aggregation decision (Bliese, 2000), we obtained an average rwg of .82 (Mdn = .82, range = .70–.86), using a uniform null distribution, an ICC(1) of .28, and an ICC(2) of .67. Finally, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) indicated a significant amount of between-group variance: F(48, 203) = 3.01, p < .01. Authentic followership. We measured authentic followership using 16 items from a self report Authenticity Inventory developed by Kernis and Goldman (2006) that we adapted to reflect the dimensional structure identified by Walumbwa et al. (2008). The 16 items appear in the appendix. In the present study, we asked followers to rate themselves on these items using a 5-point Likert-type scale with anchors ranging from completely agree to completely disagree. We obtained an internal reliability estimate (coefficient alpha) for this scale of .85. Basic need satisfaction. Deci and colleagues (2001) developed and validated a 21-item self-report instrument that measures needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Followers rated these items on a 7-point Likert-type scale using anchors ranging from completely agree to completely disagree. Sample items for each of the basic needs include “I am free to express my ideas and opinions on the job” (autonomy), “People at work care about me” (relatedness), and “I do not feel very competent when I am at work” (competence; reverse scored). We obtained an internal reliability estimate (coefficient alpha) for this scale of .92 Work role performance. Griffin and associates (2007) developed and validated a measure of individual work role performance that operationalizes different aspects of work behavior (proficient, adaptive, and proactive) at different levels (individual, team, and organization). For the current study, our interest lies in the manifestation of these three behaviors at the individual level. We included 9 items measuring the sub dimensions of proficiency (“Carried out the core parts of the job well”), adaptively (“Adapted well to changes in core tasks”), and proactivity (“Initiated better ways of doing core tasks”). Leaders rated the frequency of these follower behaviors on a 5-point Likert-type scale, with anchors ranging from never to almost always. The Cronbach’s alpha obtained as a measure of internal consistency for this scale was .86. Control variables. In this study, we controlled for leader–member social exchange. We did so to rule out the alternative explanation that the posited positive relationship between authentic leadership and authentic followership (Hypothesis 3) can be attributed to a more general positive social exchange between leaders and followers. Followers rated seven leader–member social exchange items (Bernerth, Armenakis, Field, Giles, & Walker, 2007) on a 7-point Likert-type scale using anchors ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. We obtained an internal reliability estimate (coefficient alpha) for this scale of .91. In addition, we controlled for the following demographic variables that may affect the relationship between leaders and followers: overall team size, tenure as a leader, and tenure as team leader. We included these control variables and leader–member social exchange in the model by creating paths between them and the variables we thought they were most likely to influence. We found that the addition of these controls did not meaningfully change our results. Therefore, following the recommendations of Becker (2005), we omitted these variables from subsequent analyses.

6.      What are the research question / hypotheses?

·         Hypothesis 1: Authentic followership is positively related to basic need satisfaction.

·         Hypothesis 2: Authentic leadership is positively related to basic need satisfaction.

·         Hypothesis 3: Authentic leadership strengthens the relationship between authentic followership and basic need satisfaction

·         Hypothesis 4: Basic need satisfaction mediates the positive relationship of authentic followership with follower work role performance.

·         Hypothesis 5: Basic need satisfaction mediates the positive relationship of authentic leadership with follower work role performance.

·         Hypothesis 6: Authentic leadership moderates the indirect effect of authentic followership on follower work role performance via follower basic need satisfaction.

Foreign VS Local

 saya ingin berkongsi sedikit cerita saya semasa membaiki laptop saya di mall beberapa minggu yang lepas. Laptop saya menghadapi masalah pada skrin dan harus digantikan dengan skrin yang baharu. setelah tiba di tingkat atas mall saya terus menuju ke kedai local businessman dan macam biasa saya akan compare harga dahulu sebelum membuat keputusan. setiap kali saya menuju ke kedai local rata rata harga yang ditawarkan sangat murah iaitu diantara rm270- rm300 tapi tidak termasuk gaji buka. 

hampir semua kedai local saya jenguk dan bertanya adalah yang tidak ingin melayan maklumlah saya nie student. puas saya bertanyakan soalan kalau ada benda lain yang rosak bukan skrin mcm mana abang.. lalu abang kedai itu menjawab bukan salah saya kalau ada perkara lain yang rosak adik sendiri yang nak tukar skrin bukan so tukar skrin sahaja lah ye. give up lepas dengar jenis orang yang tidak suka membantu bangsa sendiri. 

Tiba-tiba seorang foreigner Bangladesh / India kalau tidak silap sbb tak sempat berbual panjang. dia menawarkan diri untuk membaiki laptop saya pada mulanya saya agak takut sebab banyak member kata takut kena tipu padahal tidak pernah pun mereka baiki laptop di tmpt mamak nie. dia berkata jom ikut saya ke dealer. so saya pun ikut beliau dan beliau memperkenalkan saya dengan dealer laptop tersebut. macam biasa saya terus bertanyakan berapa harga skrin tersebut terus dia berkata kejap bang kita mesti tengok dulu apa yang rosak tak boleh main tukar2 sahaja mana tahu ada benda lain yang rosak. so dia terus buka skrin laptop saya dan tgk apa yang rosak. dia bersihkan dalam laptop saya dengan bersih. lalu menunjukan saya ada wayar yg reput pada system skrin dan berkata nak skrin yang mcm mana abang saya da jual 3 jenis skrin skrin biasa yang selalu perniaga sini jual dan 2 lagi jenis skrin yang bagus. so sy pilih skrin yang murah rm270 lalu dealer itu berkata barang mmg murah bang tapi saya tak suka jual benda yang kurang kualiti mcm nie better abng tambah bebrpa puluh ringgit untuk daptkan skrin yang lebih tahan lama dan lebih bagus. saya amat suka dengan layanan perniaga seperti ini. dia jujur dan berterus terang saya sendiri tgk perbezaan yang amat ketara pada skrin yg dijual oleh local disini dan skrin yang dijual oleh beliau. 

wow!! so saya decide ambil yang lebih berkualiti walaupun harganya mahal beberapa puluh ringgit sahaja. TO BE A REAL BUSINESSMAN WE MUST BE HONEST IN EVERYTHING WE DO"

sangat besar perbezaan diantara perniaga local dan foreigner disini. 

sedarkah anda most the time banyak lagi perniaga foreigner yang sanggup jalan2 jauh untuk berniaga daripada kita yang local ini yang hanya duduk menunggu duit seperti jatuh dari bumi. oleh itu, berubah lah kita untuk menjadi seorang perniaga yang berwawasan dan bijak dalam perniagaan. 

ALWAYS HONEST IN BUSINESS

Second step to success

Research your competitor

Do research to know your competitor is not mean that you try to copy there style and product. It is to let you know what is there strength and weakness. After that you can think what you need to do.. create a better product, quality product or serve an good package for your product. let me give you an example. if you competitor sale Traditional food so you can come out with Western food or Fast Food at that area. simply right. But once again we cannot just create about brand with thinking your future customer need.

Mostly, success business plan always begin with research and research because if you just build your own empire with do research that you will failed. back to the topic again if you want to copy or follow the competitor make sure you follow the good side of them for example your competitor give good services so you need give more than your competitor. if your competitor give space or relaxing environment to their customer you should follow them because if you do less then them you will good low respond from your future customer.

First Step / Langkah Pertama

Research Yourself First!!

1. Choose your industry 

Many people out their don't do this analysis before choose their own industry, sometime their just follow there friend and family because the industry is good and can make money. but if the business can't make you satisfied and happy you absolutely feel down and don't have idea to grow the business. Some people good in Food and Beverages Industry but decide to choose and engineering industry because them love more in engineering rather then Food and Beverage industry.Be careful guys in choosing your own industry if you want your business in long term period choose use your heart and brain.

2.How about my Capital (Modal)

Did i need loan money or did i need borrow money...If i'm you i choose to borrow from my family members or just use your own saving that you collect. did you know why i choose to borrow rather than make loan because loan will make you lost your mind. Did your realize if you do loan how many interest that you need to pay and risk. sometimes our people after their loan approve them will forget to run their business and start spend money own usefulness thing. If you serious do business please don't take high risk in do loan. because you are beginning in the industry. if you borrow with your family member you don't need to pay interest :) Family always support you if you are serious in want you do.. 

 

DONE FOR TODAY :) ESOK KITA BERKONGSI LAGI :) 

  

ARE YOU WANT TO BE A BUSINESSMAN ? YES OR NO...

Yes or No is the depending own you to decide whether want to be or not. Because now a days people always want to be a businessman or businesswomen because there think that business can make money and them can be a rich man one day (LOL) are you serious? 

Did you know before create an business you need to research first. mostly 50% of successful businessman do research before open there stall. did you agree with my opinion if know comment below and tell your story about creating your business... 
  

 "your FUTURE is created by what you do TODAY not TOMORROW"