Contract Law
In Malaysia, our contract law is
basically governed and enforced by the Contract Act 1950. The remedy of
specific performance presupposes the existence of a valid contract between the
parties to the controversy. The terms of the contract must be definite and
certain. This is significant because equity cannot be expected to enforce
either an invalid contract or one that is so vague in its terms that equity
cannot determine exactly what it must order each party to perform. It would be
unjust for a court to compel the performance of a contract according to
ambiguous terms interpreted by the court, since the court might erroneously
order what the parties never intended or contemplated. Based on my
understanding of the law of contract, as a general rule, performance of a
contract must be exact and precise and should be accordance to with what the
parties had promised. Section 38(1) of the Contracts Act 1950 provides that the
parties to a contract must either perform or offer to perform their respective
promises, unless such performance has been dispensed with by any law. In order
to form a contract agreement that is enforceable by law, the following six
elements must be fulfilled:
- Proposal or offer
- Acceptance
- Consideration
- Intention to create legal
relations
- Capacity to contract
- Free consent
- Proposal or offer
An
offer can be oral or written as long as it is not required to be written by
law. It is the definite expression or an overt action which begins the
contract. It is simply what is offered to another for the return of that
person's promise to act. It cannot be ambiguous or unclear. It must be spelled
out in terms that are specific and certain, such as the identity and nature of
the object which is being offered and under what conditions and/ or terms it is
offered.
Terms of contract
Contracts
can be in writing, made orally, or created through the actings of the parties.
For clarity, most commercial contracts are in writing to maintain a proper
record of the agreement. Oral contracts create a greater potential for disputes
on the terms with the parties having problems evidencing their position.
Contracts
can be formed through a course of dealing between the parties. Again, the terms
and conditions may not be clear. Common terms are likely to be incorporated in
these contracts but if they are not written down there are still evidential
problems.
It
is common for contracts to be on a company's standard terms and conditions.
Problems can arise when both parties purport to contract on their own standard
terms and conditions. Qualified acceptance of an offer while imposing your own
standard terms and conditions is seen as a counter offer. Obviously being
unaware of which terms and conditions the parties are contracting does not
provide the desired clarity or certainty of the contract.
There
are different tactics for those parties who wish to contract on their own terms
and conditions including incorporating the terms into as many pre-contractual
documents as possible and ensuring that the terms appear on the last document
between the parties before the delivery of goods.
Capacity to contract
The
general presumption of the law is that all people have a capacity to contract.
A person who is trying to avoid a contract would have to plead his or her lack
of capacity to contract against the party who is trying to enforce the
contract. Section 11 of the Contracts Act 1950 provides that “Every person is
competent to contract, who is of the age of majority according to the law to
which he is subject, and who is of sound mind, and is not disqualified from
contracting by any law to which he is subject”. It means that the person who
enters into the contract must have the full capacity in terms of age and mind. The
age of majority in Malaysia is 18 years old.
Both
Alex and Ngan were older than 18 years old when they enter into the contract.
Section 12 (1) of the Contract Act 1950 provides that “A person is said to be
of sound mind for the purpose of making a contract if, at the time when he
makes it, he is capable of understanding it and of forming a rational judgment
as to its effect upon his interests.” As a result, the agreement is valid.
Free consent
A
contract is not enforceable if its object is considered to be illegal or
against public policy. In many jurisdictions contracts predicated upon
lotteries, dog races, horse races, or other forms of gambling would be
considered illegal contracts. When entering into agreement, the parties must be
free consent to contract. The free consent as provided in Section 10(1) “All
agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of parties
competent to contract...” Under Section 14, consent must be free and not caused
by
- coercion, as defined in section
15;
- undue influence, as defined in
section 16;
- fraud, as defined in section
17;
- misrepresentation, as defined
in section 18; or
- mistake, subject to sections
21, 22 and 23.
Coercion
is described in Section 15 of the Contracts Act 1950 as the “the committing, or
threatening to commit any act forbidden by the Penal Code, or the unlawful
detaining or threatening to detain, any property, to the prejudice of any
person whatever, with the intention of causing any person to enter into an
agreement”. Undue influence in Section 16 of Contract Act 1950 is said to exist
when “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 an unfair advantage over the other”. Section 17 of the Contracts Act
1950 explains that fraud refers to acts committed by a party to a contract with
the intent to deceive the other contracting party. Misrepresentation would
refer to untrue made by a representor and that induce the other to enter into a
contract. Mistake under the Contract Act 1950 includes a mistake as to a matter
of fact (by one or both parties) and mistake as to any law in force or not in
force in Malaysia.
A contract is illegal if it involves doing something that is
a criminal act or a civil wrong, or against the public good. For example, it is
an offences to sell a firearm to a person not licensed to hold one, so a
contract to sell a firearm in these circumstances is illegal. A contract whose
purpose is to get the party to it to break another legally enforce contract
that the party has made already is also illegal. Moreover, a contract which
otherwise would be legal is illegal if its subject matter is to be used for an
unlawful purpose. So, if a firearm dealer were to agree to sell a firearm to a
person licensed to hold a firearm knowing that the buyer intends to use it to
kill someone, that contract would be illegal.
Courts will not enforce an illegal contract. Money paid or
property transferred under an illegal contract cannot normally be recovered.
There are exceptions however. For example, where a contract is made illegal by
a passed for the protection of a class of people, a member of that class can
get back money paid or property transferred by her or him under the contract.
So a tenant would be able to recover money paid to a landlord which the
landlord is prohibited by an Act to collect.
Breach of Contract
A
contract is breached (broken) when either one or both parties fails to perform
as promised in the contract. A breach may occur when a party:
- refuses to perform its promises
under the contract
- does something that the
contract prohibits, or
- prevents the other party from
performing its obligations under the contract.
Some
contract breaches are more serious than others. The law distinguishes between
material (or total) breaches and immaterial (trivial) breaches of contract.
Material Breach of Contract
A
material breach of contract (sometimes referred to as a "total"
breach), is serious and gives rise to a cause of action in court. A material
breach goes to the very heart of the contract. It renders the contract
"irreparably broken" and defeats the purpose for making it in the
first place. For example, suppose your company agrees to pay a violinist $500
to play at a company-hosted event, but the violinist shows up at the party
without his violin. The violinist has materially breached the contract to
perform if he cannot play.
When
there is a material breach of contract, the injured party can go to court and
seek damages–a money payment adequate to cover economic losses resulting from
the breach. A total breach of contact will also usually terminate the
non-breaching party’s duty to perform any of the promises he or she made in the
contract. For example, your company would have no legal duty to pay the
violinist who couldn’t play as promised.
Immaterial Breach of Contract
An
immaterial breach of contract is a trivial breach that does not render the
contract irreparably broken or defeat its purpose. An immaterial breach does
not terminate the contract. Example: A building owner enters into a service
contract for a heating system that provides that the system will be inspected
each month on Thursday. Contrary to the contract, the service person makes
inspections on Mondays. This act is a technical breach of the contract, but it
is immaterial, unless for some significant reason the inspections needed to be done
on Thursday as opposed to any other day. Since this breach is immaterial, the
contract can’t be terminated by the building owner. The two sides should work
out an accommodation—the service person can agree to show up on Mondays, or the
building owner accepts that the inspections will be done on Thursdays, perhaps
in return for paying slightly less.
Remedies
Remedies the means to achieve
justice in any matter in which legal rights are involved. Remedies may be
ordered by the court, granted by judgment after trial or hearing, by agreement
(settlement) between the person claiming harm and the person he/she believes
has caused it, and by the automatic operation of law. Some remedies require
that certain acts be performed or prohibited (originally called "equity");
others involve payment of money to cover loss due to injury or breach of
contract; and still others require a court's declaration of the rights of the
parties and an order to honor them. An "extraordinary remedy" is a
means employed by a judge to meet particular problems, such as appointment of a
referee, master or receiver to investigate, report or take charge of property.
A "provisional remedy" is a temporary solution to hold matters in
status quo pending a final decision or an attempt to see if the remedy will
work.