Summary OF Cases Contract 1 - PART 2 PDF

Preview

Summary

CONTRACT LAWCASE LIST TOPIC CLA 1950 NOTES1 ABDUL RASHID V ISLAND GOLF PROPERTIES SDN BHDOFFER PC Application of CLUB MEMBERSHIP is only a preliminary step and not an offer. The offer should be coming from the defendant on the election of the application of membership form and the acceptance was whe...

Description

CONTRACT LAW CASE LIST TOPIC 1 ABDUL RASHID V ISLAND GOLF PROPERTIES SDN BHD OFFER

2 ABDUL RAZAK BIN DATUK ABU SAMAH V SHAH ALAM FRAUDULENT MISREP PROPERTIES SDN BHD

CLA 1950 NOTES PC Application of CLUB MEMBERSHIP is only a preliminary step and not an offer. The offer should be coming from the defendant on the election of the application of membership form and the acceptance was when the plaintiff pay the entrance fee and the first month subscription.

COA

The Appellant has been induced to enter into agreement by a misrepresentation. The Federal Court had found for the plaintiff on the basis that there had been a fraudulent misrepresentation and thereby granted a rescission of the contract. A victim of fraud may choose to : 1) Rescind and get in the position he would have been had he not been induced or 2)abandon his right to rescind and insist the contract to be performed and he be put in the position in which he would have been if the representation made had been true.

3 ABERFOYLE PLANTATIONS LTD V KHAW BIAN CHENG REVOCATION

S 6(c)

Revocation S 6(c) of failure of acceptor to fulfill condition precedent to acceptance. Clause 4 provided that "the purchase is conditional on the vendor obtaining ... a renewal of the seven leases ... so as to be in a position to transfer the same to the purchaser ... and if for any cause whatsoever the vendor is unable to fulfil this condition this agreement shall become null and void and the vendor shall re-fund to the purchaser the deposit or deposits already made." Clause 9 provided that completion of the purchase was to take place on or before April 30, 1956

4 ADAMS V LINSELL

POSTAL ACCEPTANCE

4 (2a)

Acceptance by post/telegram is complete and binding as soon as the acceptance is posted.

5 AYER HITAM TIN DREDGING MALAYSIA V YC CHIN ENTERPRISES SDN BHD

LOI/ACCEPTANCE. QUANTUM MERIUT REMEDIES

The COA held that inter alia - Merely because the parties contemplate the preparation of a formal contract, that would not prevent a binding contract from coming into existence before the formal contract is signed. AN OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE MUST CORRESPONDENT. To form a contract the offeror and offeree must have meeting of mind which is consensus ad idem. This consensus can only be reached if both parties have the same terms. However, when an arrangement is made 'subject to contract' or 'subject to the preparation and approval of a formal contract', it will generally be construed to mean that the parties are still negotiating and do not intend to be bound until a formal contract is exchanged.

6 ALLCARD V SKINNER

UNDUE INFLUENCE

Ms Allcard joined sisterhood and was unduly influenced by Ms Skinner to donate all her properties to Ms Skinner. Lord Lindley - The doctrine of undue influence isnot to save persons from the consequences of their own folly but to save them from being victimised by other people.

7 ANG HIOK SENG @ ANG YEOK SENG V YIM YUT KIU

FRAUD

It is a case where on fraud of a contract of leased land price. Burden and standard of proof for fraud. Whether it is a criminal fraud or a civil fraud. If it is a criminal fraud then the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. If it is a civil fraud then the standard of proof is on a balance of probabilities.

8 BALFOUR V BALFOUR

INTENTION FOR LEGAL RELATION. DOMESTIC

No intention to create legal relations in social and domestic agreement. The husband and wife was living in amity. Atkin LJ - "the home is the domain where the king's writ does not run". The presumption for social and domestic agreement is 'no legal intention ' but rebuttable. As for commercial the presumption is 'there is legal intention' and also rebuttable.

9 BARTON V ARMSTRONG

COERCION / DURESS

The case was about Barton who was coerced by Armstrong to enter into agreement with him by threatening to have Barton killed. The agreement was made under duress and were void.

10 BISSET V WILKINSON

OPINION IS NOT A MISREP

An opinion is not a misrepresentation. 2K sheeps that the estate/farm can carry is a mere statement of opinion by Bisset as he is not an experienced farmer. It was held that Wilkinson need to bear the appellant cost.

11 BOUSTEAD TRADING SDN BHD V ARAB MALAYSIAN MERCHANT

PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL .

AMB conduct was influenced by the encouragement or representation and unconciable for the representation to enforce legal right. AMB ESTOPPED BTS.

12 BELL V LEVER BROS LTD

COMMON MISTAKE

Compensation agreement was binding as it did not involve the actual subject matter of the contract. Both parties were not aware of the mistake (that Bell breached his responsibility) at the time the contract was made.

13 CARLILL V CARBOLIC SMOKE BALL

UNILATERAL OFFER/ACCEPTANCE/ADVE RTISEMENT/ MERE PUFF/ ACCEPTANCE BY CONDUCT

1) Offer can be made to the world (unilateral contract. 2) Acceptance by performance. 3) Executed consideration. 4) intention to create legal binding by putting money 1K pound in the bank ready.

14 CHAPPLE V COOPER

CONTRACT BY MINOR

A minor be bound by a contract for necessary for a reasonable existence in life. A widow who is a minor (Cooper) had to be held responsible for the burial expense (funeral) of her late husband as funeral was amount to necessary - and the necessary has to be suited to his condition in life.

15 CHAPPELL & CO v NESTLE CO LTD

CONSIDERATION (OBITER)

“a contracting party can stipulate on what consideration he chooses. A peppercorn does not cease to be a good consideration if it is established that the promisee does not like pepper and will throw away the corn”.

16 CHEMSOURCE (M) SDN BHD V UDANIS BIN MOHAMED NOR

UNDUE INFLUENCE ON DEFECTIVE MENTAL CAPACITY

Undue influence on the person who didn't have mental capacity due to parkinson disease that he suffered.

17 CHOO TIONG HIN V CHOO HOCK SWEE

SOCIAL DOMESTIC AGREEMENT

It is a case of private family arrangement involving the obligations of father and son where there was no intention to create legal relations.

18 CHUAH TONG YEONG V KUALA LUMPUR GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB

MISREPRESENTATION

The club was not built as per prospectus and facilities were not as represented - no library - not a matter of major decisive consideration. Held - declining the order for recission but ordering for damages.

19 COLLINS V GODEFROY

PRE-EXISTING PUBLIC DUTY

Collins received a subpoena to appear in court as a witness for Godefroy. Once done, he demanded the pay as promised by Godefroy. Held: It did not have sufficient consideration. There is no valid consideration unless the performance exceeds what is normally expected of that public duty.

20 CURRIE V MISA

CONSIDERATION

A valuable consideration in the sense of law may consist either in some right, interest, profit or benefit occuring to one party or some forebearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given suffered or undertaken by the other.

21 COUTURIER V HASTIE

COMMON MISTAKE (RES EXTINCTA) - THING DOESN'T EXIST

22 CHAN YOKE LAIN V PACIFIC & ORIENT INSURANCE CO MISTAKE IN SIGNATURE SDN BHD

S 21 (a)

The corn was no longer exist when the agreement was made. Both parties have the same common mistake thinking the corn was available. There was no contract and the contract was VOID AB INITIO. The buyer is not liable to pay the price.

In this case, the person who signed the proposal form was not acting for itself but on behalf of the deceased. Pollock & Mulla on Indian Contract and Specific Relief Acts (11th Ed) Vol II at pp 1119 and 1120 said: It is essential to an agency by ratification that the act to be ratified is one wherein the agent was not acting for himself but, on behalf of the named or ascertained principal. Even though the proposal form for the PA policy was not signed by the deceased, it was ratified by him when the premium for the policy was paid and for which a receipt was sent to the deceased (by the respondent company) acknowledging the payment. It was held, allowing the appeal that by the deceased ratifying the proposal by payment of the premium and the acceptance of the proposal by the respondent by issuing a receipt for the premium received and the issuance of the PA policy, a valid contract was concluded. It was too late for the respondent to avoid liability by alleging that the signature on D2 was not that of the deceased. Unless there was evidence of collusion or connivance on the part of its agent, the respondent could not repudiate liability. In the present case, there was no allegation of collusion or connivance...