Provisions and Cases : Introduction to the Law of Contract, Torts and Crimes PDF

Preview

Summary

Capacity▫ Section 10 of CA1950 : free consent, competent parties Section 11 of CA1950 : competent parties - age of majority, sound mind, not disqualified from contracting by the law▫▫ Section 2 of the Age of Majority Act 1971 : age of majority is age 18 and above Tan Hee Juan v Teh Boon Keat : void ...

Description

Law of Contract Capacity ▫ Section 10 of CA1950 : free consent, competent parties ▫ Section 11 of CA1950 : competent parties - age of majority, sound mind, not disqualified from contracting by the law ▫ Section 2 of the Age of Majority Act 1971 : age of majority is age 18 and above ▫ Tan Hee Juan v Teh Boon Keat : void contract because the plaintiff was a minor - transfer of land to defendant ▫ Section 69 of CA1950 : contracts for necessaries are valid to be entered into by a minor, can be reimbursed by person supplying necessaries to minor ▫ Nash v Inman : the 11 fancy waistcoats were considered as luxurious articles so the contract is void ▫ Gov of Malaysia v Gurcharan Singh : education is considered as a necessary - the defendant had to pay RM2683 for damages ▫ Section 4(a) of C(A)A1976 : scholarship agreements are valid to be entered by minors ▫ Section 12 of CA1950 : unsound mind

Intention to Create Legal Relations ▫ Daiman Development Sdn Bhd v Matthew Liu Chin Teck : commercial agreements - the pro forma does not create a legal obligation to purchase and was not a legal contract ▫ Balfour v Balfour : familial agreement done when in amity - not considered binding because there was no intention to create legal relations ▫ Merrit v Merrit : familial agreement done when not in amity - considered enforceable because agreement was made when they were separated, evidence of them not living together anymore ▫ Coward v Motor Insurers' Bureau : social/domestic agreements - Mr Coward was not considered as 'for hire or reward' because there was no intention to enter into a legal contract

Certainty ▫ Section 30 of CA1950 : uncertain contracts are void ▫ Karuppan Chetty v Suah Thian : agreement of the lease was void because one of the most important terms of the lease (the duration) was undefined

Free Consent ▫ Section 10 of CA1950 : free consent of parties competent to contract ▫ Section 13 of CA1950 : consent is all parties agree upon the same thing in the same sense ▫ Section 14 of CA1950 : free consent - not caused by coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation and mistake ▫ Section 2(g) of CA1950 : void - no rights are given to both parties ▫ Section 2(i) of CA1950 : voidable - one of the parties is given the choice to continue or discontinue the contract ▫ Section 15 of CA1950 : coercion definition ▫ Section 19(1) of CA1950 : effect of coercion - voidable ▫ Kesarmal s/o Letchman Das v Valiappa Chettiar : agreement not valid and voidable at the will of the party who was coerced (orders of the Sultan, ominous presence of 2 Japanese officers) ▫ Section 16(1) of CA1950 : undue influence definition ▫ Section 20 of CA1950 : effect of undue influence - voidable ▫ Inche Noriah v Shaik Allie bin Omar : the relationship of the appellant and the respondent was sufficient to raise presumption of undue influence and the gift was set aside due to the presumption that was not rebutted ▫ Section 17 of CA1950 : fraud definition ▫ Section 19(1) of CA1950 : effect of fraud - voidable ▫ Kheng Chwee Lian v Wong Tak Thong : the respondent was persuaded to enter into a second contract which was a false representation of the land to be transferred was of the same size he agreed to purchase when in fact, it was less - agreement was voidable due to fraudulent misrepresentation ▫

S ti n 18 f CA1950 i r r ntati n d finiti n ▫ Section 19(1) of CA1950 : effect of misrepresentation - voidable ▫ Bisset v Wilkinson : contract was not voidable because the statement was only an honest opinion of the defendant ▫ Section 21 of CA1950 : mistake definition (agreement is void) ▫ Raffles v Wichelhaus : no binding contract because both parties meant different ships (mutual mistake)

Law of Crimes Elements ▫ Actus non facitreum, nisi mens sit rea : an act does not make a person guilty of committing an offence unless the act is accompanied by a guilty mind ▫ Section 32 of PC : words which refer to acts done extend also to illegal omissions ▫ Section 43 of PC : illegal to omit legal duty ▫ Rahanny Rojela v PP : evidence given by the witness that he saw the accused stab the deceased a few times and post mortem report by Dr Jessie Hiu proved the cause of death was stab wounds to the chest (proving actus reus) ▫ Norol Rojik Jun v PP : the court agreed that the seriousness of the injuries and type of weapon were intentions of the accused to kill the deceased

Burden of Proof ▫ Section 101 of Evidence Act 1950 : whoever desires any court to give judgement as to any legal right or liability, dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist ▫ Mat v PP : court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution ▫ Arulpragasan Sandaraju v PP : reaffirmed above's principle ▫ Juraimi Husin v PP : burden of establishing the defence of insanity lay upon the accused

Standard of Proof ▫ Sections 173(f)(i) and 180(1) of CPC : when the case for the prosecution has been concluded, the court shall consider whether the prosecution has made out a prima facie case against the accused ▫ Sections 173(h)(iii) and 180(4) of CPC : prima facie - when prosecution proves credible evidence proving each ingredient of the offence ▫ Ahmad Najib Aris v PP : evidence by the prosecution and the confession has made out a prima facie case of rape and murder against the appellant and called upon him to enter upon his defence ▫ Section 180(2) of CPC : no prima facie - acquittal of the accused ▫ Goh Yoke v PP : standard of proof required from the accused is on a balance of probabilities ▫ Miller v Minister of Pensions : meaning of balance of probabilities ▫ Section 182A(1) of CPC : the court has consider all the evidence adduced and decide whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt ▫ Section 182A(2) of CPC : if prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the accused may be convicted of the crime ▫ PP v Herlina Purnama Sari : burden of proof lies on the prosecution throughout the trial to prove beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the respondent for the offence ▫ Balachandran v PP : explanation of 'beyond reasonable doubt' ▫ Section 182A(3) of CPC : not proven beyond reasonable doubt - accused shall be acquitted

General Defences ▫ Chapter IV (Sections 76 to 106) of PC : general defences/exceptions ▫ Section 79 of PC : mistake of fact (not law) ▫ Chirangi v State of Nagpur : the accused mistakenly killed his son thinking that he was a tiger, the accused had physical disabilities including bilateral cataract ▫ Section 80 of PC : accident in the doing of a lawful act ▫ La Ode Ardi Rasila v PP : defence was rejected because the accused was not doing a lawful act - instead intended to use a gun to commit robbery ▫ King-Emperor v Timmappa : defence was successfully pleaded - the accused accidentally shot his friend, thinking it was a porcupine, resulting in his death ▫ Tunda v Rex : defence was successfully pleaded - accused and deceased agreed to wrestle with given consent to receive accidental injuries which caused his death ▫ Section 81 of PC : necessity (preventing more harm) ▫ PP v Ali bin Umar & Ors : it was a necessity for the respondents to seek shelter for the...