Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Kesarmal & Anor v. Valliappa Chettiar & Anor Chin Nam Bee Development Sdn Bhd v Tai Kim Choo & Ors C.M. Naested v. The State of Perak Kanhaya Lal v National Bank of India Ltd
Held: -
Chin Nam Bee Development Sdn Bhd v Tai Kim Choo & Ors
The respondents purchase homes off the plan to be constructed by the appellants. Each of the respondents had signed a sale and purchase agreement to purchase a house at $29,500. Subsequently, the respondent was made to pay an additional payment was made to pay an additional $4,000. The court was asked to determine if the additional payment was made voluntarily or under threat by the appellants to cancel the respondents booking for their houses. The appeal dismissed by the High Court which ruled that there was coercion as defined in section 15 of the Contract Act. It further added that the definition in section 15 should only apply for the purpose contained in section 14, and not for the entire Act.
Held: -
Undue influence
Morris v Burroughs Cooke v Lamotte Morley v Loughnan Lloyds Bank v Bundy Tate v Williamson Satwath Haneem v Hadjee Abdullah Datuk Jaginder Singh and Ors v Tara Rajaratnam Inche Noriah v Shaik Allie Chait Singh v Budin bin Abdullah Letchemy Arumugan Iwn Annamalay Tan Chye Chew v Anor Iwn Eastern Mining & Metals Co Ltd
Morris v Burroughs
as a reminder to parents to watch their exercise of authority over their children
Tate v Williamson
T is a student intends to sell some property to settle the tuition fees. He has found a defendant who is a lawyer for advice on the sale. Later defendant has buy property T at 7.000 without informing that the actual value of the property is 20,000.
Cooke v Lamotte
being used to cover possibility of improper or misuse of influence by guardian and those in loco parentis, solicitor, spiritual adviser, doctor, medical attendant, and may be said to apply to every case in which two persons are so situated, that one may obtain considerable influence over another unnecessary to show existance of special r/ship between dcsd and D, for he has took possession, so to speak , of the whole life of the dcsd., & the gift were not the result of the dcsds own free will, but the effect of that influence and domination.
Held : - The Court held, the contract must be set aside because there is trust between the defendant's relationships with T. This is because T has referred to the defendant to obtain counsel and by the defendant was not entitled to buy the property without making the disclosure.
Morley v Loughnan
-
Held: -
Held : - when the company went bankrupt, the court to decide, the bank is not entitled to exercise its right to such collateral. This is because, the failure of the bank to make sure the defendant to seek advice from an independent party cannot deny the assumption that the collateral contract entered into on the basis of the influence not affordable. - Later, Mr.Bundy claim bek the land n stating he is under influenced. - Unfair advantages, domination of will
Datuk Jaginder Singh and Ors v Tara Rajaratnam - The respondent who was the registered proprietor of land, claimed that she was induced by the fraud and under influence of the 1st and 2nd appellant to transfer her land to the 2nd appellant. Held: - The appellants and respondent were in a solicitor-client relationship, the transaction was unconscionable, the burden was on the appellants to rebut the presumption of undue influence. Since thay had not discharged that burden, the transaction was set aside. In addition to undue influence, the trail court also found that the appellants conduct had been fraudulent and exercised its discretion in awarding damages which was upheld by the appellate court. Inche Noriah v Shaik Allie - Point to be proved is that the other party has to act independently without any influence and fully understand the thing done by him.
1) Representation of certain fact, not opinion Chait Singh v Budin bin Abdullah - Farmer borrowed money from P, a financial company - Land of D was mortgage and a high interest of 63% is charged. - Defendant was an illiterate. Held: - Bargain is unconscious bargain therefore contract is voidable. Letchemy Arumugan Iwn Annamalay - Plaintiff who is a female rubber tappers are illiterate request to cancel the sale and purchase agreement has been entered by the defendant who was a developer. - According to plaintiff, the defendant with the help of his solicitor has taken advantage of his ignorance by calling on him to sign some documents in English. Plaintiff signed the documents without knowing and realizing that in fact he signed an agreement to sell its land in Port Dickson. Held: - Defendant claimed that the agreement was signed was witnessed by a lawyer who has explained everything to the plaintiff. The Court held evidence clearly shows that the defendant has committed a fraud on plaintiff. Thus, the painted is entitled to cancel the agreement. Bisset v Wilkinson
Bisset v Wilkinson
The claimant purchased a piece of farm land to use as a sheep farm. He asked the seller how many sheep the land would hold. The seller had not used it as a sheep farm but estimated that it would carry 2,000 sheep. In reliance of this statement the claimant purchased the land. The estimate turned out to be wrong and the claimant brought an action for misrepresentation. The Privy Council held that the statement was only a statement of opinion and not a statement of fact and therefore not an actionable misrepresentation. The claimant's action was therefore unsuccessful.
Held: -
3) Induce the other party to enter into contract Mothoolal v. Life Insurance Corp
Tan Chye Chew v Anor Iwn Eastern Mining & Metals Co Ltd
although the geological experts have been brought by the respondent to check a second appellant land not included in the contract, because the respondent has adequate facilities to conduct its own investigation to determine whether the land is examined, including in the contract, the court ruled, the appellant not do any indirection.
Representation
1) Representation of certain fact, not opinion 2) Addressed to innocent party 3) Induce the other party to enter into contract
Duty of disclosure
Keates Iwn Lord Cadogen
Derry v Peek
The defendants were directors of the Plymouth, Devonport and District Tramways Co. Ltd., which was authorised by statute to run tramways by animal power, or with the consent of the Board of Trade, by steam power. The prospectus issued by the company indicated that steam power would be used, but the Board of Trade refused its consent. The plaintiffs, on the strength of the representation in the prospectus, had obtained shares in the company, but in the absence of any evidence that the defendants believed the statement in the prospectus to be untrue
Held : - Plaintiff claim for compensation has been denied because the court did not regard this as an indirection in the defendant.
Held : - The House of Lords that they had not committed the tort of deceit.
Held: -
Held: -
S24 Unlawful agreement (a) It is forbidden by law (b) It is of such a nature that if permitted, it would defeat any law (c) It is fraudulent (d) It involves or implies injury to the person or property of another (e) Courts regards it as immoral, or opposed to public policy (a) It is forbidden by law (b) It is of such a nature that if permitted, it would defeat any law
Hee Cheng v Krishnan Menaka v Lum Kum Chum Murugesan v Krishnasamy & Anor Ahmad b. Udoh & Anor v Ng Aik Chong
Held: -
Ahmad b. Udoh & Anor v Ng Aik Chong - R leased padi land from A for 6 years & $1500 was paid therein. This agreement contravened s.3(1) of PCO. A then disallowed R to till the land & R claimed the return of the $. Held: - both were ignorant of the illegality at the time of executing the agreement, s.66 would apply.
(d) It involves or implies injury to the person or property of another Syed Ahamed Alhabshee v Puteh binte Sabtu Mohd Ali Jahn b Yusop Sahibjahn & Anor v Zaleha bt Mat Zin & Anor
Held: -
Held: -
Mohd Ali Jahn b Yusop Sahibjahn & Anor v Zaleha bt Mat Zin & Anor
In 1948, the plaintiffs father, who was registered as guardian in the title of a piece of land, sold the said land to the defendants father By this agreement the plaintiffs father guaranteed that the plaintiffs, who were minors then, would execute the transfer of the land to the purchaser when they attained the age of majority. Title to the land and possession thereof were then given to the purchaser, whose family, including the defendants, started and continued to occupy the land until this day. Quit rent was paid by the purchaser's family until 1990 and by the plaintiffs as well since 1984. Minors contract is void; court will protect minors interest; as guardian failed to seek leave of a Court or a Judge in order to deal with the land, the sale is void & the agreement therefore is unenforceable.
Held: -
Pearce v Brooks
Contract of hire of vichicle for purpose of prostitution
MAA Holdings v Ng Siew Wah - A contract for the sale of all shares of a company owning land contained a clause to the effect that the purchaser would apply to Foreign Investment Committee for approval of the transaction and should approval within three (3) months from the date of agreement. The defendants-vendors refused to complete, pleading among other things that they were not bound by the agreement as approval of the F.I.C had not been sought. Held - The failure to apply for approval was not a breach that went to the root of the contract and the parties had in fact expressly provided fir that in the agreement. - The defendants-vendors were therefore not entitled to consider themselves discharged from their obligations under the contract because if the purchasers breach, which at best, merely entitles them to a claim for damages. Restraints of Trade, S.28 Wrigglesworth v Anthony Wilson
P & D agreed that D was restrained from practicing as advocate & solicitor within 5 miles of Kota Bahru town for period of 2 years after the termination of his service contract with P. However, contrary to what was promised after the service, the defendant opened his firm in the Kota Bahru. Former employer to apply for an injunction from the courts to prevent the defendants from doing so.
Held : - The Court held, because the agreement is null, the application for an injunction denied.
Held: -
Discharge of contract Sumpter v Hedges - The claimant agreed to build two houses and stables for the defendant. It was agreed that 565 would be payable on completion. The claimant commenced performance and then ran out of money and was unable to complete. He had performed just over half of the contract. The defendant completed the work himself. The claimant sought to recover 333 representing the value of the work he had completed. He argued that in completing the work himself, the defendant had thereby accepted partial performance and prevented the claimant from completing the contract. Held: - The claimant's action failed. The court held that the defendant had no choice but to accept partial performance as he was left with a half completed house on his land.
D had no option but to accept the building partly erected on his land. Yeow Kim Pong v Ng Kim Pong Eng Mee Yong & Ors v Letchumanan Sy. Eastern Plastic Industry v Sy. Lam Seng Trading Wong Kup Sing v Jeram Rubber Estate Ltd Louinder v Leis
Wong Kup Sing v Jeram Rubber Estate Ltd - Defendants had failed to give reasonable notice to the plaintiff that intended to terminate the contract after having agreed to n extension of time for performance in a contract for the purchase of a rubber estate. Frustration There is Frustration if: a) The essence of frustration is that the extraneous event is outside the control of the parties, not caused by one of them Ramli Zakaria & Ors v Government of Malaysia
Taylor v. Caldwell
P entered into a contract with D where P would pay D 100 pounds/day to use D's music hall to give a concert. After making the agreement but before the first performance, D's music hall was destroyed by fire. Neither party was at fault in the fire. P sued D for breach of contract.
Held : - contract rescinded. - A contract may be rescinded if a key provision in the contract becomes impossible to perform due to no fault of either party. - If a person signs a contract to act as a servant of another, the executors of the servant's estate are not liable when the servant dies. - The excuse that a contract does not have to be enforced upon the destruction of a person or thing is implied by law though it may not be explicit in the contract. Object of contract destroyed/ non-occurrence of a particular event
Held: -
Krell v Henry
D agreed to hire a flat from P for June 26 &27, 1902, the contract contained no reference to the coronation processions, but they were
to take place on those days and to pass the flat. The processions were cancelled. 2/3 of the rent had not been paid and the COA held that the P cannot recover it. Death or incapacitating illness: contract for personal services. Robinson v Davison: - Wife D, famous pianist, for the presentation promised for the concert, but could not implement it because of dangerous diseases
The contract was not frustrated. The contract had not been deprived of its sole commercial purpose as it was still possible to perform the days cruise. The Naval Review was not the only commercial purpose of the contract.
d) Becomes more onerous or costly Davis Contractor v Fareham UDC Davis Contractor v Fareham UDC - The Court held that a construction contract not to be disappointed just because of shortage of labor and construction work becomes more difficult. a) Void from the very beginning Goh Yew Chew v Soh Kian Tee The appellant contractor had undertaken to construct two buildings on land belonging to the respondent employer. The sum of $5,000 was paid by the respondent to the appellants as earnest money. It was found that, owing to the encroachment of a neighbors house into the lot, there was not sufficient area to construct the buildings according to the plans. In his action the respondent claimed the return of the sum of $5,000 as money paid for a consideration which had failed.
Berney v Tronoh Mines Ltd Employment contract released by the disappointment when the Japanese invaded Malaya at that time. This means that the events that lead to frustration must be something that cannot be expected to be reasonable by both parties.
Not frustration if a) Void from the very beginning b) Can be expected to happen / foreseeable c) Collateral object achievable d) Becomes more onerous or costly c) Collateral object achievable Herne Bay Steam Boat v Hutton
Held - The respondent was entitled to the balance of the deposit of $5,000 after deduction of all reasonable expenses incurred by the appellants. b) Can be expected to happen / Foreseeable Khoo Than Sui v Chan Chiau Hee
Held:
Held: -
The defendants reason that natural disasters that cause the contract to be disappointed not acceptable due tempest that occurred have not reached the stage of natural disasters and should be in such weather conditions, the defendant should take precautions to face all eventualities.
Held : - Was the contract still a binding one? House of Lords said is this contract frustrated? Due to extraneous events? Originally, the contract was not binding, since: a) There was adequate labour b) The contract would be frustrated if there was a labour shortage - No - not going to look for an implied term, no frustration. Merely, there is a performance obligation more onerous than conceived to be. Lord Reed said that the doctrine of frustration was not based on -
an implied term notion, instead there were two facts to be considered: 1) Nature of the contract itself 2) Circumstances surrounding the contract at the time of its formation. - The doctrine of frustration addresses the problem of the frustrating arising after formation. The distinction may turn on the question of timing, as is illustrated in the following case: *The Court held that a construction contract not to be disappointed just because of shortage of labor and construction work becomes more difficult.