Held:
-
Chin Nam Bee Development Sdn Bhd v Tai Kim Choo & Ors
-
Held:
-
Held:
-
Undue influence
Morris v Burroughs
Cooke v Lamotte
Morley v Loughnan
Lloyds Bank v Bundy
Tate v Williamson
Satwath Haneem v Hadjee Abdullah
Datuk Jaginder Singh and Ors v Tara Rajaratnam
Inche Noriah v Shaik Allie
Chait Singh v Budin bin Abdullah
Letchemy Arumugan Iwn Annamalay
Tan Chye Chew v Anor Iwn Eastern Mining & Metals
Co Ltd
Morris v Burroughs
-
Tate v Williamson
-
Cooke v Lamotte
-
Morley v Loughnan
-
Held :
- when the company went bankrupt, the court to decide, the bank is
not entitled to exercise its right to such collateral. This is because,
the failure of the bank to make sure the defendant to seek advice
from an independent party cannot deny the assumption that the
collateral contract entered into on the basis of the influence not
affordable.
- Later, Mr.Bundy claim bek the land n stating he is under influenced.
- Unfair advantages, domination of will
Held :
- The Court held, the contract must be set aside because there is trust
between the defendant's relationships with T. This is because T has
referred to the defendant to obtain counsel and by the defendant was
not entitled to buy the property without making the disclosure.
Held:
-
Tan Chye Chew v Anor Iwn Eastern Mining & Metals Co Ltd
-
Representation
1) Representation of certain fact, not opinion
2) Addressed to innocent party
3) Induce the other party to enter into contract
Bisset v Wilkinson
Bisset v Wilkinson
-
Held:
-
Duty of disclosure
Keates Iwn Lord Cadogen
Held :
- Plaintiff claim for compensation has been denied because the court
did not regard this as an indirection in the defendant.
Derry v Peek
-
The high Court ruled that there was a deliberate non-disclose when
in a life insurance contract, the assured had failed to disclose that he
had previously suffered from Tuberculosis. It is trite law that a
contract of insurance is a contract uberrimae fidei which can be
voided for non-disclose of material facts.
Held :
- The House of Lords that they had not committed the tort of deceit.
Weber v Brown
Nocton v Lord Ashburton
*is a leading English tort law case concerning professional negligence and
the conditions under which a person will be taken to have assumed
responsibility for the welfare of another.
- Lord Ashburton was buying a property for 60,000 on Church Street,
Kensington, London. His solicitor was Mr Nocton. Mr Nocton
advised Lord Ashburton to release part of the mortgage security.
This was a bad idea, because as Mr Nocton in fact knew, this meant
that the security would become insufficient. Lord Ashburton alleged
the advice was not given in good faith, but rather in Mr Nocton's self
interest.
Held:
- Viscount Haldane LC for the House of Lords held that despite Derry
v Peek (which had disallowed any claim for misstatements apart
from in the tort of deceit) Mr Nocton was liable for his bad advice
given the fiduciary relationship between the solicitor and client.
Held:
-
Held:
-
Held:
-
Held:
-
Held:
-
The promise to allow the purchaser to enter the lands and occupy it
was an attempt to transfer to him a part of the promisors rights
under the TOL and therefore void.
Illegal promise could be severed from other provisions, and held that
the sale agreement was good but had become impossible to perform
so that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the purchase money.
P bought TOL land from dependant who had applied for permanent
title. They entered into an agreement with the plaintiff as soon as
titles were issued. When application was unsuccessful, P claimed the
return of money paid.
Trustee of the land belonging to a child has agreed to sell the land to
the plaintiff. If the purchase is allowed, it would be detrimental to the
interests of the children and therefore, the court ruled that the
transaction is void.
Mohd Ali Jahn b Yusop Sahibjahn & Anor v Zaleha bt Mat Zin &
Anor
-
Held:
-
Pearce v Brooks
-
Held :
- The Court held, because the agreement is null, the application for an
injunction denied.
Consequently of illegality
Ahmad b. Udoh & Anor v Ng Aik Chong
-
Held:
-
R leased padi land from A for 6 years & $1500 was paid therein.
This agreement contravened s.3(1) of PCO. A then disallowed R to
till the land & R claimed the return of the $.
both were ignorant of the illegality at the time of executing the
agreement, s.66 would apply.
contract was discovered void only after the proceedings had been
started.
only one party unaware of illegality, she only can recover her money
(innocently depositing $).
Discharge of contract
Sumpter v Hedges
- The claimant agreed to build two houses and stables for the
defendant. It was agreed that 565 would be payable on
completion. The claimant commenced performance and then
ran out of money and was unable to complete. He had
performed just over half of the contract. The defendant
completed the work himself. The claimant sought to recover
333 representing the value of the work he had completed. He
argued that in completing the work himself, the defendant had
thereby accepted partial performance and prevented the
claimant from completing the contract.
Held:
- The claimant's action failed. The court held that the defendant
had no choice but to accept partial performance as he was left
with a half completed house on his land.
-
D had no option but to accept the building partly erected on his land.
Taylor v. Caldwell
-
Held:
-
Held :
- contract rescinded.
- A contract may be rescinded if a key provision in the contract
becomes impossible to perform due to no fault of either party.
- If a person signs a contract to act as a servant of another, the
executors of the servant's estate are not liable when the servant dies.
- The excuse that a contract does not have to be enforced upon the
destruction of a person or thing is implied by law though it may not
be explicit in the contract.
Object of contract destroyed/ non-occurrence of a particular event
Krell v Henry
-
D agreed to hire a flat from P for June 26 &27, 1902, the contract
contained no reference to the coronation processions, but they were
to take place on those days and to pass the flat. The processions were
cancelled. 2/3 of the rent had not been paid and the COA held that
the P cannot recover it.
Death or incapacitating illness: contract for personal services.
Robinson v Davison:
- Wife D, famous pianist, for the presentation promised for the concert,
but could not implement it because of dangerous diseases
5-year lease renewal at all frustrated with the existence of the new
enactment that sets the annual renewal.
Not frustration if
a) Void from the very beginning
b) Can be expected to happen / foreseeable
c) Collateral object achievable
d) Becomes more onerous or costly
c) Collateral object achievable
Herne Bay Steam Boat v Hutton
Held:
The defendant hired out the claimant's steamship. The purpose of the
contract was to take paying passengers to view the Naval Review
which was part of King Edward VII's coronation celebrations. The
defendants were also offering a days cruise for the passengers. The
Naval Review was cancelled as the King was ill. The defendant did
not use the steamship and the claimant brought an action for the
agreed contract price. The defendant argued the contract had become
frustrated due to the cancellation of the Naval Review.
The contract was not frustrated. The contract had not been deprived
of its sole commercial purpose as it was still possible to perform the
days cruise. The Naval Review was not the only commercial purpose
of the contract.
Held
- The respondent was entitled to the balance of the deposit of $5,000
after deduction of all reasonable expenses incurred by the appellants.
b) Can be expected to happen / Foreseeable
Khoo Than Sui v Chan Chiau Hee
The defendant has contracted to recuse logs from the river Sugut
plaintiff to Sandakan. Defendants are required to attract eighty two
logs, but only eleven arrived safely only because of strong riut at sea.
Plaintiff has made a claim for damages for any loss of logs wood, but
the defendant refused to pay damages on the grounds that the natural
disasters that have occurred that caused the contract to be frustrated.
Held:
-
The defendants reason that natural disasters that cause the contract to
be disappointed not acceptable due tempest that occurred have not
reached the stage of natural disasters and should be in such weather
conditions, the defendant should take precautions to face all
eventualities.
Held :
- Was the contract still a binding one? House of Lords said is this
contract frustrated? Due to extraneous events? Originally, the
contract was not binding, since:
a) There was adequate labour
b) The contract would be frustrated if there was a labour shortage
- No - not going to look for an implied term, no frustration. Merely,
there is a performance obligation more onerous than conceived to be.
Lord Reed said that the doctrine of frustration was not based on
-