2.3: Effect of contract
Voidable Contract
1.Coercion (Case Kersamal S/O Letchman Das V Valiappa Chettiar )
💜Sec 15 of the CA 1950 – coercion is 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.
👀Fact:财产的转移是根据苏丹的命令进行的，该命令是在日本占领马来亚期间在两名日本军官的行为逼迫下发出的。
👀Held：contract is voidable（可以选择是否要作废）2.Undue Influence (Case Inche Noriah V Shaik Allie Bin Omar )
💜Sec 16(1) of CA 1950 – 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 an unfair advantage over the other.💜Sec 16(2) (a) of CA 1950 – where he holds a real or apparent authority over the other, or where he stands in a fiduciary relation to the other.💜Sec 16 (2) (b) of CA 1950 – 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.💜Sec 16 (3) (a) of CA 1950 – where a person who is in a position to dominate the will of another, enters into a contract with him, and the transaction appears, on the face of it or on the evidence adduced, to be unconscionable, the burden of proving that the contract was not induced by undue influence shall lie upon the person in a position to dominate the will of the other.💜Sec 20 of the CA 1950 - when consent to an agreement is caused by undue influence, the agreement is a contract voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused.👀Fact:据称，一名侄子对他年迈的姨妈用undue influence让姨妈转财产给他。一名律师起草了赠与契约，律师没有证明这几乎是姨妈的全部遗产，也没有建议她实现结果的更好方法是通过意愿。👀Held:可撤销3.Fraud (Case Letchemy Arumugam v Annamaly )
💜Sec 17 of CA 1950 – fraud includes any of the following acts committed by a party to a contract, or with his convenience, or by his agent, with intent to deceive another party thereto or his agent, or to induce him to enter into a contract.👀Fact: Letchemy Arumugam是一名不识字的印度妇女，是一名橡胶采伐者，Letchemy Arumugam对Annamaly在波德申港的土地有虚假或欺诈性的虚假陈述为由，向Annamaly声称声明并撤销了她签署的销售协议和其他文件。Letchemy Arumugam要求赔偿损失和利息. Annamaly是一家房屋开发商，不愿意赔偿，并就具体性能和损害赔偿进行了反诉。👀Held：法院允许索赔，因为Letchemy Arumugam已经证明Annamaly的欺诈性虚假陈述。4.Mispresentation (Case Bisset V Wilkinson )
👀Fact:Bisset和Wikinson购买了一块农田作为养羊场。Bisset问Wikinson，这片土地上能养多少只羊。Wikinson估计它将运载2000只羊。估计结果证明是错误的，Bisset提起了虚假陈述诉讼。👀Held：该声明只是一种意见，而不是事实，因此不是可起诉的虚假陈述。因此，索赔人的诉讼没有成功。5..Mistake (Case Raffles V Wichelhaus )
💜Sec 21 of the CA 1950 – where both the parties to an agreement are under a mistake as to a matter of fact essential to the agreement, the agreement is void.👀Fact:Raffles同意出售Wichelhaus的 125包苏拉特棉花，用船运去Peerless from Bombay。Wichelhaus相信这批货物将于10月从运抵Peerless from Bombay。然而，Raffles并不知道这些船只几时到达。当12月的棉花到达Peerless，Raffles已经准备好并愿意将棉花交付给Wichelhaus，但Wichelhaus拒绝接受棉花，也拒绝支付Raffles。👀Held：合同无效，因为没有共识
Void Contract
1. Case Wrigglesworth V Wilson Anthony
👀Fact: Wilson Anthony是一名律师，与Wrigglesworth的律师事务所签订了服务协议。该协议第8条规定，Wilson Anthony在合同终止2年后，若要在Kota Bharu的5英里范围内工作必须要得到Wrigglesworth的书面同意。Wilson Anthony于12月7日停止与Wrigglesworth合作，并于12月31日在新公司开始新工作，但是，他没有征求Wrigglesworth的书面同意，Wrigglesworth也没有给予任何同意。因此，Wrigglesworth起诉Wilson Anthony要求禁令，限制Wilson Anthony执业或开展业务。👀Held： 该协议无效，因为没有人有权被限制从事合法的职业，贸易或业务。2. Case Manang Lim Native Sdn Bhd V Manang Selaman👀Fact：非本地人试图在本地土地上进行交易，这违反了砂拉越土地法，除非交易得到Yang di-Pertua Negeri Sarawak的授权。👀Held：违反砂拉越土地法的协议是出于非法考虑而签订的，因此是无效的协议。3. Case Tunku Kamariah Aminah Maimunah Iskandariah Bte Sultan Iskandar V Dato James Ling Beng King👀Fact: 本案涉及购买股份的协议。根据《银行法》第23A条，如果购买的股份超过银行总股份的5%，则需要财政部长的同意。Tunku Kamariah Aminah Maimunah Iskandariah Bte Sultan Iskandar没有获得财政部长的同意。👀Held： 该协议无效，理由是它违反了公共政策，因为财政部长的事先批准没有按要求获得。4. Case Pearce V Brooks
👀Fact：Pearce 同意为 Brooks 雇用一名妓女，因为Pearce知道Brooks将用它来做生意。Brooks没有支付帮忙雇佣费用，Pearce声称应付款项。👀 Held： 法院裁定，P未能就claim hire charge，因为该协议是非法且不道德的。5. Case Aroomogum V Lim Ah Hang
👀Fact: Arromogum借钱给Lim Ah Hang，目的是经营一家妓院. Lim Ah Hang之后不愿还钱👀Held:Aroomogum无法从Lim Ah Hang那里收回他的钱，因为该协议是非法的且不道德的。6. Case Bettini V GYE
👀Fact：Bettini同意在伦敦赛季为Gye演唱2周。Bettini还同意在音乐会前至少6天到达伦敦，但她生病了，只在音乐会前2天到达伦敦。GYE拒绝使用Bettini。👀Held: 关于排练的条款不是一个条件，也没有触及合同的根源。因此，GYE无权解除合同
2.4: Discharge of contract
1.Discharge by performance (Case Bolton V Mahadeva)
👀Fact:Bolton帮Mahadeva安装了一个中央供暖系统，耗资560美元。然而，住户Mahadeva在装置中发现了一些缺陷，Bolton拒绝修复它。Mahadeva维修后，维修费用为174美元。因此，Mahadeva拒绝支付560美元👀Held：Bolton无权获得任何金钱，而Mahadeva则从合同中解除。2.Discharge by frustration
💜Sec 57(1) – an agreement to do an act impossible in itself is void.💜Sec 57(2) – a contract to do an act which, after the contract is made, becomes impossible, or by reason of some event which the promisor could not prevent, unlawful, becomes void when the act becomes impossible or unlawfula) Case Taylor V Caldwell
👀Fact：Taylor租了一个音乐厅，目的是举办4场盛大的音乐会。Taylor在组织音乐会方面花费了大量精力和精力，然而，在第一场音乐会前一周，音乐厅被意外火灾摧毁。Taylor试图以未能提供大厅为由提起违约诉讼，并要求Caldwell赔偿损失。👀Held：Taylor不能和Caldwell索赔。由于火灾发生得无法控制，合同受挫，无法履行合同。b) Case Krell V Henry
👀Fact：Henry同意租用Krell的公寓观看Edward VII的加冕游行。国王生病了，游行被取消.👀Held：合同被解除，租金不可退还c) Case Condor V The Barron Knight LTD
👀Fact：Condor，16岁，是Barron Knight LTD乐队的鼓手，合同期为5年。他的职责是每周7个晚上演出。Condor生病了，他的医生命令他每周只能玩4个晚上。乐队随后终止了他的合同。👀Held：P因为生病不可能继续履行合同的责任。合同被适当地终止。3.Discharge by breach (Case Tan Hock Chan V Kho Teck Seng )
👀Fact: Kho Teck Seng是Tan Hock Chen雇用的建筑承包商，负责建造某些商店，Tan Hock Chen 对Kho Teck Seng 是根据进度付款工资。由于土地占用者要求租赁权，Kho Teck Seng无法完成最后一块地块的工作。👀Held：Tan Hock Seng未能将土地的有效占有权交给Kho Teck Seng构成违约，Kho Teck Seng有权终止合同
没有评论:
发表评论