Contract LIST OF Cases According TO THE Topics (pdf) 2016 PDF

Preview

Summary

need to open the book(s) as well. Just in case, I might be wrong. Anyway goodluck revising. Hope they help! DO NOT MAKE ANY SALE OF PURCHASE OVER THIS NOTES AS CONSENT WILL NOT BE GRANTED. PLEASE MAKE IT AS AN OPEN ACCESS.Made by : NK/@bitternuzz 2016/ Tq to feoCONTRACTS LIST OF CASES ACCORDING TO T...

Description

Disclaimer: yo. this notes are not for studying but specifically made for quick revision purposes. Some contents may not complete das y u guys need to open the book(s) as well. Just in case, I might be wrong. Anyway goodluck revising. Hope they help! DO NOT MAKE ANY SALE OF PURCHASE OVER THIS NOTES AS CONSENT WILL NOT BE GRANTED. PLEASE MAKE IT AS AN OPEN ACCESS. CONTRACTS LIST OF CASES ACCORDING TO THE TOPICS TOPIC 1.

ISSUES

CASE(S)

Offer Made to specific/world

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball

Offer may be express/implied Must be clear in meaning

Preston Corp Sdn Bhd v Edward Leong Ahmed Meah & Anor v Nacodah Merican

Must be valid at law

Affin Credit (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v Yap Yuen Fui

a) advertisement

Patridge v Crittenden

e) application for club membership

Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots CC Ltd Fisher v Bell Spencer & Ors v Harding & Ors Blackpool and Flyde Aero Club v Blackpool BC Payne v Cave M & J Frozen Food Sdn Bhd & Anor v Siland Sdn Bhd & Anor Harris v Nickerson Warlow v Harrison Abdul Rashid v Island Golf Properties Sdn Bhd

Notice of revocation

Offord v Davies & Anor

Lapse of time revoked offer

Macon Works & Trading Sdn Bhd Phang Hon Chin & Anor Ramsgate Victoria Hotel Co v Montefiore

Cross offer

Tinn v Hoffman & Co

Failure of acceptor to fulfill condition precedent to acceptance

Aberfoyle Plantations Ltd v Khaw Bian Cheng

Death or mental disorder of offeror

Dinkinson v Dodds Bradbury v Morgan

b) display of goods c) tenders

d) auctions

Made by : NK/@bitternuzz 2016/12 Tq to feo Contact: [email protected]

Financings Ltd v Stimson

Disclaimer: yo. this notes are not for studying but specifically made for quick revision purposes. Some contents may not complete das y u guys need to open the book(s) as well. Just in case, I might be wrong. Anyway goodluck revising. Hope they help! DO NOT MAKE ANY SALE OF PURCHASE OVER THIS NOTES AS CONSENT WILL NOT BE GRANTED. PLEASE MAKE IT AS AN OPEN ACCESS.

2.

Acceptance

Communication of proposal + revocation Must be absolute and unqualified Counter offer

Byrne & Co. v Leon Van Tienhoven & Co The Ka Wah Bank v Nadimusa Sdn Bhd & Anor Hyde v Wrench

Stevenson, Jaques & Co. v Mc Lean Request for information Terms amended during acceptance Jones v Daniels No contract: a) Daiman Development Sdn Bhd v Matthew Lui Chin Teck & Anor b) Kam Mah Theatre Sdn Bhd Subject to contracts

Already binding: a) Prism Leisure Sdn Bhd v Lumut Marine Resort Bhd b) Ayer Hitam Tin Dredging Malaysia Bhd v YC Chin Ent Gibbons v Proctor; court allowed to claim for reward

Knowledge of offer

Motive of acceptor

Fitch & Anor v Sneddacker; cannot claim for reward Immaterial: William v Carwardine Clear from false charge: R v Clarke

Modes of communicating acceptance a) Positive action b) Performing conditions

Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Co Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co

c) Phone/telex d) Conduct

Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corp Taylor v Allon No acceptance: Felthouse v Bindley

e) Silence Made by : NK/@bitternuzz 2016/12 Tq to feo Contact: [email protected]

Disclaimer: yo. this notes are not for studying but specifically made for quick revision purposes. Some contents may not complete das y u guys need to open the book(s) as well. Just in case, I might be wrong. Anyway goodluck revising. Hope they help! DO NOT MAKE ANY SALE OF PURCHASE OVER THIS NOTES AS CONSENT WILL NOT BE GRANTED. PLEASE MAKE IT AS AN OPEN ACCESS. 3.

consideration

Defining consideration: terms of purchase and sale Types a) Executory b) Executed c) Past

From a third party Natural love and affection “near relation” Act done not voluntarily: no consideration Promise to pay extra $1/ton : no consideration Inadequacy of consideration Not an issue

Currie v Misa K Murugesu v Nadarajah Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. Common law: Not a good consideration: Re v McArdle Exceptions: Lampleigh v Braithwait Kepong Prospecting Ltd. & Ors v Schmidt Venkata Chinnaya v Verikatarama’ya Queck Poh Guan v Quick Awang Re Tan Soh Sim JM Wotherspoon & Co. Ltd v Henry Agency House Leong Huat Sawmill (Pte) Ltd. v Lee Man See Phang Swee Kim v Beh I Hock Common law – Pinnel’s case Payment of smaller sum cannot be any satisfaction of the whole

Waiver of performance

4.

Capacity

Promissory estoppel GR: Minors are not competent Beneficial contract

Made by : NK/@bitternuzz 2016/12 Tq to feo Contact: [email protected]

Malaysia: Tiung Eng Jin v Wong Sie Kong Kerpa Singh v BariamSingh Tenaga Nasional Bhd v Perwaja Steel Sdn. Bhd. Mohori Bibbee v Dharmodas Ghose De Francesco v Barnum Roberts v Gray

Disclaimer: yo. this notes are not for studying but specifically made for quick revision purposes. Some contents may not complete das y u guys need to open the book(s) as well. Just in case, I might be wrong. Anyway goodluck revising. Hope they help! DO NOT MAKE ANY SALE OF PURCHASE OVER THIS NOTES AS CONSENT WILL NOT BE GRANTED. PLEASE MAKE IT AS AN OPEN ACCESS. Scholarships

Government of Malaysia v Gurcharan Singh & Ors

Marriage

Rajeshwary & Anor v Balakrishnan & Ors Restitution under S 66 of CA Leha Binte Jusoh v Awang Johari bin

Necessaries

11 fancy waistcoats are not necessasries Nash v Inman Funeral for husband is considered necessaries Chapple v Cooper

Unsound mind 5.

Intention to create legal relation

Imperial Loan Company Ltd v Stone Asia Commercial Finance v Yap Bee Lee

Statements of advertisement showed the intention of D

Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball Co.

Expression in writing btw parties that intend to be legally bound

Letter was “a contractual document” Kwong Kum Sun (S) Pte Ltd v Lian Soon Siew & Ors There exist only negotiation no agreement was signed MN Guha Majunder v RE Donough indicate there was not intending to be legally bound Yap Eng Thong v Faber Union Ltd

No intention to be bound Communications btw parties GR

Made by : NK/@bitternuzz 2016/12 Tq to feo Contact: [email protected]

Disclaimer: yo. this notes are not for studying but specifically made for quick revision purposes. Some contents may not complete das y u guys need to open the book(s) as well. Just in case, I might be wrong. Anyway goodluck revising. Hope they help! DO NOT MAKE ANY SALE OF PURCHASE OVER THIS NOTES AS CONSENT WILL NOT BE GRANTED. PLEASE MAKE IT AS AN OPEN ACCESS.

a) Social and domestic relationship: No intention

a) Adopting father-adopting sons Choo Tiong Hin & Ors v Choo Hock Swee b) Husband-wife (living in amity) Balfour v Balfour c) Mother-daughter Jones v Padavatton d) Deceased-couple lived in attic (executors claim possession) Helsop v Burns Exceptions: a) Husband-wife (not living in amity) Meritt v Meritt b) Nothing prevents couple from entering tenacy Pearce v Merriman contract of honour only: not enforceable a) “honourable pledge clause” Rose and Frank & Co v JR Crompton & Bros Ltd b) coupon on pool for football matches Jones v Vernon’s Pools Ltd

b) commercial agreements: Have intention

Rebutting GR: BOP falls to party who denies legal intention “ex-gratia” does not rebutt legal intention Edward v Skyways Ltd Insurers: there should be an enforceable agreements Home Insurance Co Ltd & St Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co v Administratia Asigurarilor De Stat

Made by : NK/@bitternuzz 2016/12 Tq to feo Contact: [email protected]

Disclaimer: yo. this notes are not for studying but specifically made for quick revision purposes. Some contents may not complete das y u guys need to open the book(s) as well. Just in case, I might be wrong. Anyway goodluck revising. Hope they help! DO NOT MAKE ANY SALE OF PURCHASE OVER THIS NOTES AS CONSENT WILL NOT BE GRANTED. PLEASE MAKE IT AS AN OPEN ACCESS. Purpose of taxation: Whether selling petrol alone or the coins along the petrol Esso Petroleum v Commisioners of Customs and Excise; no contractual intention as not necessarily any intention should be entered with regards of the coins. The wordings of agreements did not intend to binding contracts at law but remains in the binding of honour Ford Motor Co Ltd v Amalgamanted Union of Engineering and Foundry Workers Letters of comfort a) Trial judge: have legal effects. In COA: No legal binding. b) Binding legal effects depending on the intention and circumstances

Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Malaysia Mining Corp Bhd (MMC)

North South Properties Sdn Bhd v David The Teik Lim & Anor

“MOU” = Memorandum of understanding

No legal binding

Made by : NK/@bitternuzz 2016/12 Tq to feo Contact: [email protected]

Parties intended the MOU to be subject to formal contract to be executed by both parties after the finalization of the terms and conditions Lim Hong Liang & Anor v Tan Kim Lan @ Tan Kim Lang & Anor

Disclaimer: yo. this notes are not for studying but specifically made for quick revision purposes. Some contents may not complete das y u guys need to open the book(s) as well. Just in case, I might be wrong. Anyway goodluck revising. Hope they help! DO NOT MAKE ANY SALE OF PURCHASE OVER THIS NOTES AS CONSENT WILL NOT BE GRANTED. PLEASE MAKE IT AS AN OPEN ACCESS. MOU provided that final agreement could only be concluded on the advice of the parties ‘ respective lawyers. Court held that MOU was too uncertain (ref S 30 of CA) Kheam Huat Holdings Sdn Bhd v The Indian Association, Penang 6.

Free consent

Coercion a) common law Not recognize threats to property but only recognize threat to person

Barton v Armstrong

North Ocean Shipping Co Ltd v Hyundai Construction Co Ltd Chin Nam Bee Development Sdn Bhd v Tai Kim Choo & 4 Ors b) contracts Act 1950 covers the unlawful detention of property Undue influence

a) S 16(1)

Teck Guan Trading Sdn Bhd v Hydrotek Engineering (S) Sdn Bhd & Ors

Allcard v Skinner i) one person is in position to dominate the others ii) dominant person uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage Poosathurai v Kannappa Chettiar & Ors a) a person holds a real apparent authority over the other/when there is a fiduciary relationship b) contract is made with person whose mental capacity is affected by; age, illness, mental or bodily distress

b) S 16(2) Salwath Haneem v Hadjee Abdullah Rosli Bin Darus v Mansor @ Harun Haji Saad & Anor Tong Seng Din Bon & Anor v Ban Chap Ah Seng

Made by : NK/@bitternuzz 2016/12 Tq to feo Contact: [email protected]

Disclaimer: yo. this notes are not for studying but specifically made for quick revision purposes. Some contents may not complete das y u guys need to open the book(s) as well. Just in case, I might be wrong. Anyway goodluck revising. Hope they help! DO NOT MAKE ANY SALE OF PURCHASE OVER THIS NOTES AS CONSENT WILL NOT BE GRANTED. PLEASE MAKE IT AS AN OPEN ACCESS. Special relationship under (2)(a): i. Father-Son – Khaw Cheng Bok & Ors v khaw Cheng Poon & Ors ii. Solicitor-Client – Tara Rajaratnam v Datuk Jagindar Singh & Ors Seah Siang Mong v Ong Ban Chai & Another Case iii. fiduciary relationship – Tengku Abdullah Ibni Sultan Abu Bakar & Ors v Mohd Latiff Bin Shah Mohd & Ors and other appeals iv. Husband-Wife – Public Finance Bhd v Lee Bee Rubber Factory Sdn Bhd & Ors; court held that no presumably UI in this relationship presumption under (2)(b): i. Parkinson’s disease – Chemsource (M) Sdn Bhd v Udaris bin Mohammad Nor

c) S 16(3)

a) burden of proof shifts to the person accused of exerting undue influence Ragunath Prasad v Sarju Prasad

Fraud S 17(a) Suggestion of untrue fact S 17(b) Active concealment of fact S 17(c) No intention to perform promise Made by : NK/@bitternuzz 2016/12 Tq to feo Contact: [email protected]

Kheng Chwee Lian v Wong Tak Thong Tay Tho Bok & Anor v Segar Oil Palm Estate Sdn Bhd. Datuk Jagindar Singh & Ors v Tara Rajaratnam Jong Chuk v Chong Tung Sang & 5 Ors

Disclaimer: yo. this notes are not for studying but specifically made for quick revision purposes. Some contents may not complete das y u guys need to open the book(s) as well. Just in case, I might be wrong. Anyway goodluck revising. Hope they help! DO NOT MAKE ANY SALE OF PURCHASE OVER THIS NOTES AS CONSENT WILL NOT BE GRANTED. PLEASE MAKE IT AS AN OPEN ACCESS.

S 17(d) Act fitted to deceive

Magnum Finance Berhad v Tan Ah Poi & Anor Kheng Chwee Lian v Wong Tak Thong Jong Chuk v Chong Tung Sang & 5 Ors

Duty for a person to speak

a) ordinary relationship: Seller-Buyer does not constitute fraud Lau Hee Teah v Hargill Engineering Sdn Bhd & Anor. b) familial relationship: child-father etc. exist duty to speak from father

Caveat Emptor

Karuppannan Chellapannan v Chong Lee Chin

Uberrimae fidei

Haji Ahmad Yarkhan v Abdul Gani Khan & Anor

Burden of proving on person who asserting it

Datin Zainun binti Ismail v Tuan Minah binti Syed Abdul Rahman & Anor

Standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities

Ang Hiok Seng @ Ang Yeok Seng v Yim Yut Kiu

Misrepresentation Tortuous and contractual obligations can co-exists after the contract is concluded Explains the elements of misrepresentation Mere puffing and exaggeration that form representation. Distinction between fraud and misrepresentation Innocent misrepresentation

Made by : NK/@bitternuzz 2016/12 Tq to feo Contact: [email protected]

Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon Chuah Tong Yeong v Kuala Lumpur Golf & Country Club Low Kon Fatt v Port Klang Golf Resort (M) Sdn Bhd Falls under S 18(a) & (b) Double Acres Sdn Bhd v Tiarasetia Sdn Bhd; court also address silence can amount to misrepresentation Sim Thong Realty Sdn Bhd v The Kim Dar @ Tee Kim

Disclaimer: yo. this notes are not for studying but specifically made for quick revision purposes. Some contents may not complete das y u guys need to open the book(s) as well. Just in case, I might be wrong. Anyway goodluck revising. Hope they help! DO NOT MAKE ANY SALE OF PURCHASE OVER THIS NOTES AS CONSENT WILL NOT BE GRANTED. PLEASE MAKE IT AS AN OPEN ACCESS. Who has committed fraud cannot seek recover under S 64 of Indian CA (S 65 of CA) Damages for rescission not available under S 75 of Indian CA (S 76 of the CA)

Mithoolal Nayak v Life Insurance Corpn of India

The section only allows compensation for damage “sustained through the non-fulfillment of the contract” and not for the case of rescission ab initio Haji Ahmad Yarkhan v Abdul Gani Khan & Anor

Damages recoverable should not be assessed on the same footing of Abdul Razak bin Datuk Abu Samah v Shah Alam Properties Sdn Bhd & damages for breach bc the Anor Appeal contract has been set aside (rescinded) Exception in S 19 is applied

Tan Chye Chew & Anor v Eastern Mining and Metals Co Ltd

Common law position on party discovered by ordinary diligence: contract is void

Nocton v Lord Ashburton

Mistake Common law

a) common mistake

Made by : NK/@bitternuzz 2016/12 Tq to feo Contact: [email protected]

Void ab initio Couturier v Hastie Mistake on the nature/quality of the subject matter; compensation agreement is binding Bell v Lever Bros Ltd Mistake by both parties; not void ab initio, merely voidable Solle v Butcher

Disclaimer: yo. this notes are not for studying but specifically made for quick revision purposes. Some contents may not complete das y u guys need to open the book(s) as well. Just in case, I might be wrong. Anyway goodluck revising. Hope they help! DO NOT MAKE ANY SALE OF PURCHASE OVER THIS NOTES AS CONSENT WILL NOT BE GRANTED. PLEASE MAKE IT AS AN OPEN ACCESS.

b) mutual mistake (cross purposes) c) unilateral mistake

Example: A offers to sell B, his red car. B thought it was an offer for a blue car that A also owns. It’s also said that in such a situation, they are at cross purposes in contract formation. Only one party know the mistake. The other party, is ignorant of it. e.g mistake of true identity of the other contracting party

Contracts Act 1950 a) S 21 mistake of fact by both parties which must be essential to the agreement *Applicable to cases of common mistake as well b) S 22 mistake of law c) S 23 mistake of fact by one party *applies to unilateral mistake

Mistake as to identify of persons

Agreement is void Sheikh Brothers Ltd v Ochsner & Anor *similar fact to Couturier v Hastie United Asian Bank Berhad v Chun Chai Chai @ Chan Eng Kee & 5 Ors; the mistake of fact essential to tenancy agreement Agreement is not void, the mistake of fact is not essential M Pakiam v YP Devathanjam i. in force in Malaysia – not voidable hence valid ii. not in force in Malaysia ie. Foreign law – void Not voidable Covers the mistake to fact which is not essential to the agreement. i. court held that the party had intended to contract Phillips v Brooks Ltd, Lewis v Averay ii. court held that the party had not intend to contract Ingram & Ors v Little Judge followed the former cases

Made by : NK/@bitternuzz 2016/12 Tq to feo Contact: [email protected]...