My Contract Journey
  • Home
  • Download
  • Social
  • Features
    • Lifestyle
    • Supports Group
  • Contact Us

Law

Quotes

Contact


Hi and welcome back to my blog!

Today, I'm going to share with you another topic which is mistake. We all happen to make mistakes sometimes, after all, we're human. Therefore, mistakes can happen anywhere including in a contract. Without further ado, let's jump into it!

What is a mistake?

According to  Section   21   of   Contracts   Act   1950,   when both the parties to an agreement are under a mistake as to a matter of fact essential to the agreement, the agreement is void. Mistake can be divided into two types, which are mistake by law and mistake by fact. This will be discussed later.

Categories of mistake

At common law, mistake is divided into three categories which are;

  1. Common mistake
  2. Mutual mistake
  3. Unilateral mistake

What is Common Mistake?

                                      

The common mistake happens when both parties make a  mistake as to a fact fundamental to the agreement. It must relate to a matter of existing fact or law and can affect the contract in two basic ways. First, it can prevent an agreement from being reached either through the parties’ failure to produce a matching offer and acceptance on a matter essential for an agreement. Secondly, the parties may have reached an agreement, but they share an error with respect to some important contextual circumstance. 

For example,   Maleficent entered into a contract to sell a dress to Aurora, when it is unknown to both of them, the dress was destroyed and no longer exists. Here, it can be said that there was a common mistake because both of them were unaware that the subject matter of the contract had already perished at the time of the contract. 


What is Mutual Mistake?

                                     

It happens when the parties misunderstand each other and are cross purposes. Mutual mistakes involving an important fact will enable either party to avoid the contract. In order to have the courts declare a contract void because of mutual mistake,  it is required more than just establishing the making of any sort of common mistake. 

For example, Harry Potter intends to offer his Volkswagen  Polo Red in colour for sale, but Hermione believes that the offer relates to the Volkswagen Polo Black in colour also owned by Harry Potter. Similarly, Professor Dumbledore owns a few apartments situated at different locations. He contracted to sell one of them to Voldemort. Professor Dumbledore intended to sell his apartment situated in Johor Bahru whereas Voldemort thought that he was purchasing the apartment situated in Shah Alam. Both parties made a mutual mistake as to the important fact ie, the subject matter of the contract. Either party will be able to avoid the contract under the circumstances. 

This can be seen in the case of Chop Ngoh Seng v Esmail & Ahmad Bros, where the subject matter of the contract was not in existence. This fact was not known to both the parties when they entered into the contract. It was held that the contract is void.


Unilateral Mistake

                                       

It happens when only one of the parties is mistaken while the other party know of the mistake.  A  unilateral mistake is such an error that is held by only one party and not shared by the other party. Unilateral mistakes can occur with regards to any of the terms and provisions contained in a  contract.  Most unilateral mistakes involve the definition of a  phrase or word.  

For example,  in a   contract for  the  sale of screws,  one  party may  incorrectly  believe  that  the   word  “screw”   refers  to Phillips-head screws, when in fact the term refers to standard-type screws. If only one party holds this mistaken belief, but the other is clear on the meaning of “screw”, then this could be called a unilateral mistake. On the other hand, if both parties believed that the word “screw” referred to nails, then this is an example   of   a   mutual   mistake.   

Unilateral   mistakes   also   frequently   involve prices, quantities, dates, and the description of goods or services. This can be seen in the case of  Freeman v Kiamesha Concord Inc, whereas a  guest at a  resort  hotel  misread  an advertisement  concerning  the memorial Day weekend entertainment and believed that a popular entertainer would be performing for three nights during the weekend rather than just one.Upon   learning   from   the   truth,   he   sought   to   cancel   part   of   his   three   days reservation.  The   court  held   that  his   mistake  was   a factual   one  and   it  was unilateral. Therefore, although he checked out of the resort before the end of the three days reservation, he remained obligated to pay his hotel bill in full.

Mistake by law

                                   

Mistake of law is covered by Section 22 of Contracts Act 1950. Under this section, a contract is not voidable merely because it is caused by a mistake as to any law in force in Malaysia, but mistake as to law not in force in Malaysia has the same effect as mistake of fact. 

Mistake of fact

                                       

A   mistake   of   fact   by   both   parties   to   the   agreement   may   occur   in   the   following circumstances;
  1. mistake as to the existence of the subject matter of the contract, 
  2. mistake as to the identity of the subject matter,
  3. mistake as to the quality of the subject matter, and
  4. mistake as to the possibility of performing the contract. 

Mistake as to the existence of the subject matter of the contract

It stated in Section 21 of Contracts Act 1950, when unknown to both parties the subject matter of the contract had ceased to exist or has never been in existence at all at the time of the contract, the consent of the parties is said to   be   nullified.   There   is   common   mistake   here   as   to   the   existence   of   the subject matter which is a matter of fact essential to the agreement. Thus, the agreement is void.

To illustrate to this provision, one example can be seen when Josh agrees to buy from Becky a certain horse, it turns out that the horse was dead at the time   of   the   bargain,   though   neither   party   was   aware   of   the   fact.   Here,   the agreement is void

Referring to the case of  Strickland v Turner, whereas a buyer bought and pay annuity scheme on X life. The fact that X has already passed away is unknown to both the buyer and the seller. It was held that the contract is void, the subject matter of the contract.

 Mistake as to the identity of the subject matter

Also stated in  Section   21  of   Contracts  Act   1950,  mistakes usually arises where one party intends to deal with one thing, and the other with a different one.

For example, Danial intends to offer his Proton Saga 1.3cc for sale but Bakar believes that offer relates to the Proton Saga 1.5cc owned by A. In this situation, there is a mutual mistake as to identify the subject matter. Both parties are at cross purposes that they do not reach an agreement and there is no contract between them. 

Referring to the case of  Raffles v Wichelhaus,  Raffles agreed to sell cotton to Wichelhaus. The agreement provided that the cotton was to arrive in England  from   Bombay.  However,   there were two  different   ships regularly sailing from  Bombay to England, one  leaving in October and  the  other in December. Raffles shipped the cotton on the December ship, and defendantWichelhaus refused to accept the cotton. Raffles sued on the alleged contract. Wichelhaus argued that it understood the shipment would be shipped on the October ship. The court was held that there was no binding contract. Since the parties meant different ships and there  was a mistake  by both  Raffles and Wichelhaus. 

Mistake as to the quality of the subject matter

Mistake as to the quality of the subject matter of the contract, generally means whether the contract can be void if the subject matter of the contract in reality does not have the quality it is believed to be had by the parties of the contract. 

Referring to the case of Nicholson v Smith. In this case, a contract gets formed between A and B according to which A has to sell Charles I Napkinsto B. A gathers some napkins and sells them to B. At that time both parties think that  those Napkins belong  to  Charles  but  actually it  is  not  so.  They belong to King George. It was held that reversal of considerations can be made i.e. avoiding the contract.

Mistake as to the possibility of performing the contract

Generally, it can be defined when both parties think that it is possible to perform the contracts. But actually, it will be an impossible event. In such case the contract gets discharged.

For example, Izzat has to pay RM 10, 000 to Janie and for that Janie has to marry Tony. While entering into the contract, Izzat and Janie think that Tony is alive. But actually, Tony was dead five years ago. So, the mistake as to the possibility of performance can be seen soon after formation, the contract gets discharged due to impossibility.

Referring to the case of Sheikh Brothers v Ochsner, where the appellant company granted to the  first respondent  a license and authority to cut and manufacture all sisal growing on 5,000 acres of land in Kenya, and to deliver to appellant  50 tons per month of the sisal fibre for sale. Respondent was then unable to do so as the leaf potential of the sisal was not sufficient to produce that much. It was held that the basis of the contract to produce such amount which cannot be done because it was essential to the agreement, therefore the agreement was void.

Effects of mistake




Pursuant to  Section 14 of Contracts Act 1950, where a contract is void for mistake there will be no title or rights can pass under it and neither party is under any obligation to perform it. Section 66 also stated that any person who has received any advantage under the agreement is bound to restore it or to make compensation for it to the person from whom he received it.

And that's a wrap! It may seem complicated, but as soon as you had understood the gist of each category of the mistake, it will be so much simpler! 

That's all for today, till then! Have a good day~ 😊

 







Hi and welcome back to my blog! Today, I'm going to share another important topic which is misrepresentation. 

What is misrepresentation?

In a simple word, misrepresentation is a false statement made by a party that will induce another party to enter into a contract. The statement may be false in fact or in law and must be made during the process of negotiations as a representation. When the statement turns out to be untrue, we can file an action for misrepresentation.

There are three types of misrepresentation:-

  1. Fraudulent misrepresentation
  2. Negligent misrepresentation 
  3. Innocent misrepresentation


Fraudulent misrepresentation

The significance of a misrepresentation being classified as a fraudulent one is that the measure of damages may be greater under certain circumstances. There are two remedies available for fraudulent misrepresentation: recession and damages.

Representees should attempt a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation with caution, as the courts impose a much higher standard of proof due to the serious allegations. There may also be penalties in the event the claim is not made out.

A fraudulent misrepresentation was defined in Derry v Peek(1889) 14 App Cas 337 as a false statement which is ‘made knowingly, or without belief in its truth, or recklessly, careless whether it be true or false’.

In order to assess whether a statement has been made fraudulently, you should consider whether:

  1. The statement maker knows that the statement he has made is false
  2. The statement maker has reasonable grounds to believe his statement is true even if it is false
  3. In the case of a, there will clearly be a fraudulent statement.

In the case of 2, if the statement maker has made a false statement, but has reasonable grounds to believe his statement, it will not amount to a fraudulent statement, as it has not been made recklessly or carelessly. A statement made recklessly or carelessly needs to be a statement made which the statement maker has no belief in the truth of (but does not know for sure that it is true or false).

Thomas Witter Ltd v TBP Industries Ltd [1996] 2 All ER 573 clarified that where a statement is made where the statement maker has no idea whether or not it is true or false, this statement would be fraudulent due to the recklessness asserting it is true when it may not be.


Negligent misrepresentation

An alternative approach to a claim for negligent misrepresentation is to pursue the claim under statute. The Misrepresentation Act 1967 Section 2(1) allows for such a claim and contains the key components.

The significance of a negligent misrepresentation claim under statute is that the burden of proof from the common law claim is reversed. The representor cannot escape liability simply by proving that he was not negligent, it must be proven that he had reasonable grounds to believe the statement -Howard Marine & Dredging Co Ltd v A Ogden & Sons (Excavations) Ltd [1978] QB 574.


Innocent misrepresentation

With the development of the Misrepresentation Act the claim for innocent misrepresentation is extremely limited. A claim for innocent misrepresentation will arise when a claim for negligent misrepresentation under the Misrepresentation act has failed. The remedy for an innocent misrepresentation will usually be rescission of the contract.


The remedies for misrepresentation

1. Rescission

When a contract has been induced by misrepresentation of any kind, the contract does still confer obligations upon the parties, but the contract will be voidable. Voiding the contract as this stage is using the remedy of rescission. There are a number of restrictions to the use of this remedy. These are known as ‘bars’ to rescission.

2. Affirmation

Affirmation refers to an affirmation of the contract, whereby despite the misrepresentation, the representee had held themselves out to be happy with the contract as it is, therefore affirming the misrepresentation (Long v Lloyd [1958] 2 All ER 402.

In the event of a misrepresentation, it is expected that the representee, if they are not happy with the contract, will take action to remedy the contract.


Lapse of time

There is a differing approach by the courts for different types of misrepresentation.

In the case of fraudulent misrepresentation, the lapse of time will begin at the time the fraud was either discovered, or could have been discovered.

As for misrepresentation which is negligent or innocent, the lapse of time will begin from the date of the contract - Leaf v International Galleries [1950] 2 KB 86.


Restitutio in integrum

This bar to rescission refers to where a rescission of the contract is no longer possible. This is the case where the goods under the contract have been used, consumed or have perished - Clarke v Dickson (1858) 120 ER 463.

In the event that the goods have only been partially consumed rescission is a more complicated issue - TSB Bank plc v Camfield [1995] 1 WLR 430. In De Molestine v Ponton [2002] 1 All ER (Comm) 587 this approach was rejected, and it was argued a partial rescission may be possible where you can split the contract into multiple parts.


Damages

The measure of damages differs for each of the types of misrepresentation, therefore each will be considered in turn.


Fraudulent misrepresentation

A fraudulent misrepresentation requires a high standard of proof. Doyle v Olby (Ironmongers) Ltd [1969] 2 QB 158 is authority to the effect that damages are awarded on a tortious basis, aiming to put the aggrieved party in the position they would have been if the misrepresentation was true.

This standard is usually subject to a test of ‘reasonable forseeability’, where a loss will only be claimable if the statement maker could have reasonably foreseen that the fraudulent statement would have resulted in such a loss.


Negligent misrepresentation under the common law

Negligent misrepresentation claimed under Hedley Byrne v Hellerand the tort of deceit are extremely limited in comparison to those for fraudulent misrepresentation. Unlike damages for fraudulent misrepresentation, under the tort of deceit the damages are limited by the test of remoteness.

The test of remoteness, from Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co (The Wagon Mound))[1961] AC 388, only allows damages to be claimed that are “reasonably foreseeable”.

If the claimant has also been negligent to some extent, damages may be reduced by way of contributory negligence, apportioning some of the blame to the claimant.


Negligent misrepresentation under the Misrepresentation Act

Under Section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act, damages are awarded on exactly the same basis as fraudulent misrepresentation. Therefore, the statement maker will be liable in damages for all consequential losses as a result of the statement, irrespective of their foreseeability - Sharneyford Supplies Ltd v Edge [1987] Ch 305.

Section 2(2) of the Misrepresentation Act clarifies the relationship between rescission and damages. The courts have identified that rescission can often result in unfair consequences, and therefore, damages may be awarded as an alternative to rescission. This means that there cannot be a claim for rescission and damages; it must be one or the other.


Can liability from misrepresentation be excluded in the contract?

In order for liability for misrepresentation to be excluded, Section 8 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 rules that the term must be:

  1. Reasonable
  2. Clear and precise as to the exclusion of misrepresentation

That's it on the misrepresentation! It may be a little long but rest assured that these cases will be handle by legal counsel. As a normal citizen, we only need to be aware of the contract that we enter is misrepresentation or not? If so, don't be panic we may bring action for that! 

See you on the next topic!

 


Hi and welcome back!

Today I'm going to share with you guys another important topic which I supposed everyone (doesn't matter what your age are) should have know. Why? Is that really important? Let me give you some scenarios. Have you ever got a phone call by an unknown id numbers and then they told you that they're from an insurance company/police officer/court, then they asked for your personal information. Well, that's a scammer. That's right! In contract, the term used is fraud.

Section 17 of Contracts Act 1950 defined fraud as certain acts which are committed with intent to induce another party to enter into a contract.

Five different acts which may constitute fraud (S.17 of CA 1950)

  1. The suggestion, as to a fact, of that which is not true by one who does not believe it to be true;
  2. The active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge of belief of the facts;
  3. A promise made without any intention of performing it;
  4. Any other act fitted to deceive; and
  5. Any such act or omission as the law especially declares to be fraudulent.
The explanation for each acts are as follows:-
  1. The suggestion, as to a fact, of that which is not true by one who does not believe it to be true

  • S.17(a) has similar requirements as S.18(a) in that there must be  a false representation of fact addressed to the party misled.
  • The difference is the state of mind of the maker of the statement.Under17(a) maker of statement does not believe it to be true.
  • See illustration (a)  to S.19 - A, intending to deceive  B ,falsely represents  that 500 gantangs of indigo are made annually at A’s factory, and thereby induces B to buy the factory. The contract is voidable at the option of B.
  • Case: Kheng Chwee Lian v Wong Tak Thong - The respondent was induced into signing the second agreement by the misrepresentation regarding the area granted to him, which misrepresentation was fraudulent within the meaning of s. 17(a) & (d), Contracts Act, 1950.
       2. The active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge of belief of the facts
  • Where a party to a contract actively conceals or prevents certain material information from reaching the other  party to the contract,  this active concealment amount to fraud .
  • See illustration (c ) and (d) to S.19 to show the operation of S. 17(b)
  • (c) B,having discovered a vein of ore on the estate of A, adopts means to conceal and does conceal the existence of the ore from A. Through A’s ignorance B enable to buy the estate at an undervalue. The contract is voidable at the option of A.
  • (d) A is entitled to succeed an estate at the death of B. B dies; C having received intelligence of B’s death prevent the intelligence reaching A,thus induces A to sell him his interest in the estate.The sale is voidable  at the option of A.
  • Case: Horsfall v Thomas - The plf ordered a gun from the def. The def inserted a metal plug  to conceal the defect  in the weak spot in the gun .
  • Held: This act amount to active concealment with intention to deceive or to induce the other party to enter into the contract .
        3. A promise made without any intention of performing it
  • Where  a promise  is made without any intention of performing it , it is an act of fraud under S.17(c) .
  • Either the promisor knows that when he makes the promise he cannot perform it or he makes  a promise that he intends to break. 
  • Case: MUI Plaza Sdn Bhd v Hong Leong Bank Bhd (No 2) - The plaintiff has a cause of action to recover damages for fraudulent misrepresentation and for the tort of deceit.
        4. Any other act fitted to deceive
  • S. 17(d) is a catch-all clause to prevent any fraud escaping the net of the law
  • Case: Loi Hieng Chiong  v Kon Tek Shin - The court  found that  the appellant was not honest  as to the true  value of his land at Sibu  when he persuaded the Respondent  to exchange the lands and that it was not fair ,just and reasonable  having regard to the accepted value of the  Appellant’s land . The Appellant had perpetrated fraud in the exchange of the land title.
        5.  Any such act or omission as the law especially declares to be fraudulent.
  • Where  any law specially declares certain acts or omissions to be  fraudulent, such act  or omission  amounts to fraud under S.17 (e)

Does silence or non-disclosure constitute as fraud?

General rule: Mere silence or Non-disclosure would not constitute fraud. However,  there are certain circumstances whereby silence or non-disclosure may constitute fraud as provided under the Explanation to S.17:-

1. A duty  of the person keeping silence  to speak  
  • The law puts a duty upon a person in a position of trust and confidence a duty to speak  and disclose all relevant information to the person reposing trust and confidence in him in any transaction between them .
  • Eg. Contract of uberrimae fidei (utmost good faith) /Contract of Insurance  
2. In some  circumstances  the silence  the  silence is , in itself , equivalent to speech.
  • E.g  illustration (c ) to S.17
  • B ,says to A ,if you do not deny it , I shall assume  that the horse  is sound . A says nothing . Here, A’s silence is equivalent to speech .
What is the standard of proof for fraud?

In the case of Ang Hiok Seng v Yim Yut Kiu the court lays down:
  • All  cases on agreement and contracts are dealt with in civil courts.
  • An  allegation of fraud  in any civil proceedings  could be an allegation  based on a civil offence  or criminal offence.
  • If it is based on a criminal offence (i.e on offence of criminal breach of trust or misappropriation of money) the court must apply the  criminal burden of proof  of beyond reasonable doubt. 
  • If it is based on a civil offence , the civil burden of proof  on the balance of probabilities should apply.
  • Where it involves  fraud of purely civil in nature , the degree of probability required  will vary  from case to case  according to the gravity of allegation. It should be of higher degree of probability than in the allegation for tort of negligence.
What are the effect of an agreement entered by fraud?

By virtue of Section 19 of CA 1950, it is voidable at the option of the plaintiff. However, there is an exception to this. There  are  2 circumstances  under exception to S.19 where , although  there was misrepresentation or  fraud, the contract is not voidable.
  1. Where the misrepresentation  or fraud  did not affect the misled party’s consent  to enter into the contract; and 
  2. Where the misrepresentation  or fraud  by silence  could have been discovered  by the misled party had he exercised ordinary diligence  before entering  into the contract.
How far is the application of the Exception to S.19?

The Exception applies to both  misrepresentation  under S.18 and the Explanation  to S.17 for fraud by silence. But not applicable to active fraud under s.17 (a) to (e) of the Act. Therefore a misled party under the case of active fraud  is not under a duty to exercise ordinary diligence.

Exception to S.19 can on be used as a defence only in cases of fraud by silence. The  illustration (b) and (c)  to S.17 are examples of fraud by silence  and that the party is under a duty to exercise ordinary diligence to discover the truth.

As all about fraud have been explained, it can be justified that Knowledge Can Protect You. However, if you're one of the victim of fraud, now you know your rights and may bring your case in court. 















 


In the last post, we discussed on the topic of coercion. Do you still remember what coercion is? That's great! Today, I'm going to explain on another topic which is also an agreement made without free consent just like coercion. I guess that you already know what it is! 

What is Undue Influence (UI)?

It is an improper pressure on a person resulting in his being at a manifest disadvantage in relation to some transaction. In other words, UI happens when a person manipulatively influence others to enter into a contract and obtain unfair advantage over the other.

In Malaysia, UI is provided under Section 16(1) of Contracts Act 1950 as follows:-

"A contract is said to be induced by ‘undue influence” where the relations subsisting between the parties are such that one of the parties is in a position to dominate the will of the other and uses that position to obtain unfair advantage over the other."

From the provision, there are two elements in order to prove UI which are:

  1. Dominant position
  2. Obtain unfair advantage

Section 16(2) of Contracts Act 1950 provides two limbs where a party have a dominant position:-


(a)    Where he holds a real or apparent authority over the other, or where he stands in a fiduciary relation to the other; or

(b)    Where he makes a contract with a person whose mental capacity is temporarily or permanently affected by reason of age, illness, or mental, or bodily distress


The first limb provides that a person is deemed to have a dominant person over the other when he holds a real/apparent authority OR where he stands in a fiduciary relation. How to determine which relations it falls? The court usually refer to the common law principle which are Class 2A for real/apparent authority and Class 2B for fiduciary relation. It can be understood as follows:

Real/Apparent authority (Class 2A)
  • Exhaustive
  • Special relationship
  • Eg: solicitor and client/ doctor and patient

Cases:
  • Public Finance Bhd v Lee Bee Rubber Factory Sdn Bhd - Supreme Court gave examples of certain classes of relationship which puts the person in a position to dominate the other
  • Rosli Darus v Mansor Hj Saad - The defendant was in loco parentis. Plaintiff was unemployed, without parents and was totally dependent on the defendant for his daily subsistence.
  • Ong Ban Chai v Seah Siang Mong - Advocate and client


Fiduciary Relationship (Class 2B)
  • Subjective
  • Trust and confidence
  • Eg: husband and wife/siblings/friends

Cases:
  • Southern Bank Bhd v Abdul Raof bin Rakinan - Husband  and wife
  • Tate v Williamson - Uncle and nephew
  • Polygram Records Sdn Bhd v The Search - trust and confidence 

The second limb of Section 16(2) usually known as a shortcut to prove the existence of dominant position because it only needs to prove on the mental incapacity of the party entering the contract.

Cases:
  • Inche Noriah v Shaikh Allie bin Omar - Appellant was a feeble old woman, unable to leave the house, relying entirely upon the respondent for everything, even for her food, clothes and management of her affairs.
  • Lim Kim Hua v Ho  Chui Lan - The plaintiff was very much dependent on the first defendant in both her physical and financial needs as she was getting old in age, had a poor memory and was illiterate. 

As all the requirements were satisfied, a person is deemed to have a dominant position over the other in a contract. Thus, making the first element of UI was established.


The second element to prove UI is the party obtain an unfair advantage over the other. The court also refer to the common law principle which is the rule of unconscionable bargain. It must be a disadvantage which is so obvious to any independent and reasonable person.

Cases:
  • Tate v Williamson - A nephew sold a property to his uncle at an undervalue price
  • Polygram Records Sdn Bhd v The Search - Fail to prove suffered determent

When it is satisfied that a person fulfilled both of these requirements which are dominant position and obtain unfair advantage, it is justified that the contract is made under Undue Influence.

However, in gifts cases,  there is no need to prove unfair advantage as it is obvious that one party will have unfair advantage over the other. In the case of Inche Noriah v Shaikh Allie bin Omar, the court observed that when the appellant executed the deed(gift), her relationship with the respondent was sufficient to raise the presumption of undue influence of respondent over the appellant.

Can we rebut the presumption of UI?

Yes. Section 16(3) provides that the burden of proof  will shift to the defendant where the court will give the defendant to rebut the presumption. Generally, the dominant party can rebut the presumption of UI by showing :-
  1. The transaction was the result of the free exercise  of the victim’s independent will even without showing that the victim received independent legal advice.
  2. The victim understood what he was doing and that was his mental act. ie the donor was acting independently of any influence from the done with full appreciation of what he was doing.

What are the effects and remedies for a contract entered by UI?

Section 20(6) provides that an agreement caused by undue influence is voidable at the option of plaintiff where the plaintiff may rescind or affirm the contract. If the plaintiff rescind the contract, all the benefit he received from the contract should be restore back by virtue of Section 65 of Contract Act 1950.

By setting aside undue influence contract, we can prevent victimization of one party by the other and not because of one’s folly, imprudence or want of foresight.













 

 


Hi and welcome back!

You must be wondering why I put a picture of a customer at a checkout counter in Watsons. How is it related to the title? Well, let me give to you guys some clue. Have you ever been in a situation where you were tricked or should I say 'forced' to buy something that you didn't want to buy in the first place? There you go! Now you get the main idea what I'm talking about. Perhaps, this probably only happens to women.. However, I believe sometimes, men also face this horrific situation too! Imagine how tired we are to face this kind of situation every time we were shopping. When we refused politely, they will take an advantage to persuade us more or even worst, by threatening to refuse to add points in our membership cards. All of these happened in real life and based on my own experience and others. 

The question is does this situation amount to coercion?

Generally, the law requires the parties enter into contracts with free consent. (Sec. 10 of Contracts Act 1950) So, what does amount to free consent? Section 14(a) of CA provides that when a party enter into a contract not caused by coercion. What is coercion? Section 15 provides two ways of committing coercion:-

1. The commission / threat to commit of any act forbidden by the Penal Code

2. The unlawful detention / threatened detention of any property

And in both instances, the act or threat was done with the intention of causing any person to enter into an agreement.

So, how is it? Pretty simple right? So let's break through into the scenario earlier. Whether the act of the staff which is refusing to add points in the customer's member card is an act forbidden by the Penal Code? Of course, it is not. Then, we go to the second limb, does those action by the staff considered as unlawful detention or threatened detention of any property? The member card is the property. It should be noted that the property detained may belong to any person, not necessary the victim, so long as it was done for and did cause the victim to enter into the agreement. Therefore, the act of the staff detaining the customer's property (membership card) in order for the customer to buy other products does fulfilled the elements of coercion.

However, it should be noted that when the staff did not unlawfully detained any property from the customer it does not constitute a coercion. We can referred in the case of Muthia v. Muthu Karoppa [1927]:-

An agent refused to hand over the account books of the business, at the end of his term in office, to the new agent unless the principal freed him from the liability in respect of his agency . The principal executed a release deed under which the agent was freed from liability.

Held: The release deed was voidable at the option of the principal. As he was made to execute the release deed under coercion. In this case the consent was obtained by unlawfully detaining the property (i.e., the account book) of the principal.

So, what happened to the contract if it entered by coercion?

Section 19(1) of CA states that the effect of coercion is the contract becomes voidable. According to section 2(i), when a contract is voidable there are two option given to the party coerced whether to rescind or to affirm the contract. If the contract is rescinded, the court will restore the parties to the position they were in before the contract.(Sec 65 of CA 1950)

Now, I hope that we got a clearer picture on the topic of coercion. If you're one of the victim that were coerced to enter into a contract, you should know your right. However, I believe this case has never been brought into court as it only consist a small amount of money. I mean, the staff coerced the customer to buy a box of tissue approximately worth about RM 5.. See you in court? It doesn't make sense, right? 

I hope this post peaks your interest, clears up any questions you have, and motivates you to learn more about contract law.  Contract is actually fun!

Good-bye for now. Until next time! 









Welcome to My Contract Journey website which is my very first blog post ever! My name is Asma Izzati, currently studying Bachelor in Law at University Sultan Zainal Abidin. Here, I will share my knowledge, opinion and also my point of view on learning law of contract. Is it really a complicated, tortuous, knotty subject just like what the rumour said? Well, guess we should find out then!

Stay tune for more updates!



Home
Powered by Blogger.

About Me

My photo
Asma Izzati
2nd year student of Bachelor in Law University Sultan Zainal Abidin
View my complete profile

Mistake

Hi and welcome back to my blog! Today, I'm going to share with you another topic which is mistake. We all happen to make mistakes someti...

Search This Blog

Blog Archive

  • ▼  2021 (2)
    • ▼  January (2)
      • Mistake
      • Misrepresentation
  • ►  2020 (4)
    • ►  December (2)
    • ►  November (1)
    • ►  October (1)

SUBSCRIBE & FOLLOW

  • Home
  • Travel
  • Life Style
    • Category
    • Category
    • Category
  • About
  • Contact
  • Download

Popular Posts

  • Undue Influence
      In the last post, we discussed on the topic of coercion. Do you still remember what coercion is? That's great! Today, I'm going to...
  • Misrepresentation
      Hi and welcome back to my blog! Today, I'm going to share another important topic which is misrepresentation.  What is misrepresentati...
  • Mistake
    Hi and welcome back to my blog! Today, I'm going to share with you another topic which is mistake. We all happen to make mistakes someti...

Designed by OddThemes | Distributed by Gooyaabi Templates