In this Act the following words and expressions are used in the following senses, unless a contrary intention appears from the context: * Every promise and every set of promises, forming the consideration for each other, is an agreement. Section 26(b) from Contract Act 1950 An agreement made without consideration is void, unless- * Is a promise to compensate for something done. It is a promise to compensate, wholly or in part, a person who has already voluntarily done something for the promisor, or something which the promisor was legally compellable to do. Case law First case
University Malaya v Lee Ming Chong (FC) 1986 Facts: Lee was given a scholarship to study in Canada on one condition that he must work for the University for 2. 5 years. Upon Lee’s return, he left the University and argued that he had not provided consideration and hence there is no contract between Lee and UM. Federal court held that there was consideration as UM paid the fees. Even if there was no consideration the agreement is still valid as s 4(c) Contracts (Amendment) Act 1976 provides that a scholarship agreement is not void by absence of consideration. Second case
Phang Swee Kim v Beh I Hock (1964) MLJ, 383. Thus in Malaysia the case of Phang Swee Kim v Beh I Hock [1964] MLJ 383 the respondent alleged that the appellant has trespassed on his land and he instituted an action claiming for possession and also for an account of all income received by the appellant from the land. The appellant counterclaimed for a declaration that she was entitled to the said land. At the hearing, the appellant contended that there was an oral agreement made between her and the respondent in which the respondent agree to transfer the land to her on payment of $500.
The Essay on British Politics in the Case of Lee Clegg
Was Lee Clegg a murderer or just a political pawn? Was this the Nationalists revenge for Bloody Sunday? The DPP thought there was no case to answer. Why was he then convicted, paroled and then acquitted of the charge? The army obviously never thought of him as a killer so then why did the British government bow to Irish pressure and then act on Public Pressure for his release and acquittal?The ...
The learned trial judge accepted her evidence but held that the agreement is void due to inadequacy of consideration. However on appeal, the Federal Court held that by virtue of explanation 2 to section 26 of the Contracts Acts 1950, the inadequacy of the consideration was immaterial. There was good consideration under Section 2(d) of the Contracts (Malay States) Ordinance 1950 and judgment was made in favour of the appellant.
In addition there was no evidence of suppression of the value of the property, misrepesentation, or fraud. However, where one party denies that his consent is freely given; where he alleges, that the other party has committed or exercised undue influence, then the court will take into account the inadequacy of the consideration to determine whether or not the party’s consent was freely given as per in the illustration (g) to Section 26 of Contracts Act 1950. Application of law
In case Belton Sdn. Bhd, don’t have any documentation can prove Belton Sdn Bhd overdraft RM50,000 of the Bank ABC Bhd. The defence of the RM50,000 was utilised prior to signing of the security documentation, there was past consideration, But in the s26(b) of Contract Act 1950, the inadequacy of the consideration is a fact which the court should take into account in consideration whether or not Belton Sdn Bhd’s consent was freely given, so is no void even though there is no consideration.
Conclusion In fact, Bank ABC Bhd can sue the Belton Sdn Bhd, because of them default to repay the outstanding amount of RM550,000. These debts can be divide into two parts ,one is RM500,000 that have a contract can prove Belton Sdn Bhd got overdraft in the bank, another part is RM50,000,may no any documentation can prove it ,but it doesn’t represent is void. Then sue they breach the contract, to request for compensation let them pay the cost of litigation debt.
