Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 217 views

    Tutorial 5 (Week 6)

    Uploaded by

    Ying Qian
    This tutorial covers the topics of discharge of contract by performance and breach under Malaysian law. It discusses the general rule of exact performance, substantial performance, and the doctrine of substantial performance. It also examines the legal issues surrounding time being of the essence in contracts. The tutorial provides commentary and summaries for several important Malaysian court cases related to discharge by performance and breach of contract. It aims to explain the rights and obligations of parties in situations where a contract has been fully performed, substantially performed, or breached.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Tutorial 5 (Week 6)

    Uploaded by

    Ying Qian
    217 views3 pages
    This tutorial covers the topics of discharge of contract by performance and breach under Malaysian law. It discusses the general rule of exact performance, substantial performance, and the doctrine of substantial performance. It also examines the legal issues surrounding time being of the essence in contracts. The tutorial provides commentary and summaries for several important Malaysian court cases related to discharge by performance and breach of contract. It aims to explain the rights and obligations of parties in situations where a contract has been fully performed, substantially performed, or breached.

    Original Title

    314076_Tutorial 5 (Week 6).docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This tutorial covers the topics of discharge of contract by performance and breach under Malaysian law. It discusses the general rule of exact performance, substantial performance, and the doctrine of substantial performance. It also examines the legal issues surrounding time being of the essence in contracts. The tutorial provides commentary and summaries for several important Malaysian court cases related to discharge by performance and breach of contract. It aims to explain the rights and obligations of parties in situations where a contract has been fully performed, substantially performed, or breached.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    217 views3 pages

    Tutorial 5 (Week 6)

    Uploaded by

    Ying Qian
    This tutorial covers the topics of discharge of contract by performance and breach under Malaysian law. It discusses the general rule of exact performance, substantial performance, and the doctrine of substantial performance. It also examines the legal issues surrounding time being of the essence in contracts. The tutorial provides commentary and summaries for several important Malaysian court cases related to discharge by performance and breach of contract. It aims to explain the rights and obligations of parties in situations where a contract has been fully performed, substantially performed, or breached.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    TUTORIAL 5 (WEEK 6): DISCHARGE BY PERFORMANCE & BREACH

    Question 1

    Discuss the general rule in contractual relations that performance must be exact and precise and in
    accordance with what the parties have agreed under the Common Law and Contracts Act 1950 (Act
    136).

    Question 2

    By an agreement dated 1st January 1980, Raymond, a contractor agreed with the Matahari University
    to construct two hostel blocks, one for the boys and another for the girls, a common room and a
    restaurant, one library building, one swimming pool and a squash court. The project was to be
    completed on 15th June 2002. The total cost of the construction work was RM 10m. Raymond was
    paid an advance of RM 5m at the commencement of the work and the agreement provided that the
    balance of the amount was to be paid on the completion of the entire work on 15th June 2002.
    Sometimes in January 2001, Raymond abandoned the work. But by this time most of the buildings
    under the project had been built except the swimming pool and the squash court. Raymond claimed
    from Matahari University the actual cost of the construction work, which has been completed, less the
    advance of RM 5m. The Matahari University denied that Raymond had completed the works in
    question and counter-claimed RM 3m as expenses incurred in completing the work, which remained
    undone, or in the alternative damages for the breach of the contract.

    Discuss and decide the rights of the parties under these circumstances.

    Question 3

    Guan Chit Tuan J in KP Kunci Raman v Goh Brothers Sdn Bhd [1978] 1 MLJ 89 stated;

    “The rigour of the common law rule has been modified by the doctrine of substantial performance
    that promisor who has substantially performed his side of the contract may sue on the contract for the
    agreed sum although he remains liable in damages for his partial failure his contractual
    obligations.”

    Explain the above statement in relation to the law of performance of contracts. Support your answer
    with decided cases.

    Question 4

    Explain the legal issues surrounding the clause “time of the essence of the contracts”. Support your
    answer with decided cases.

    Question 5

    Write a commentary (include the summary of facts, legal issues and judgments) for the following
    cases:

    Discharge by Performance

    Cutter v Powell (1795) 6 TR 320


    Bolton v Mahadeva [1972] 1 WLR 1009
    Tong Aik (Far East) Ltd v Eastern Minerals & Trading (1959) Ltd [1963] MLJ 322
    H Dakin & Co Ltd v Lee [1916] 1 KB 566.
    Built ding & Estates Ltd v Connor [1958] 1 MLJ 173
    KP Kunchi Roman v Goh Bros Sdn Bhd [1978] 1 MLJ 89
    Sumpter v Hedges [1898] 1 QB 673
    Haji Hasnan v Tan Ah Kian [19631] MLJ 175
    Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul [1987] 162 CLR
    Kejuruteraan Elektrik Usahamaju Sdn Bhd v Zilatmas (M) Sdn Bhd. [2000] 4 AMR 4706.
    Hasbullah Chan & Associates Architect v Rahika Development Sdn Bhd [2000] 4 AMR 4706
    Mott Macdonald (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v Hock Der Realty Sdn
    Yee Hoong Loong Corp Sdn Bhd v Kwong Fook Seng Co [1993] 1 MLJ 163
    Smith Construction Co Ltd v Phit Kirivatna [1955] MLJ 8
    Penang Development Corp v Khaw Chin Boo & Anor, 1[1993] 2 MU 161; [1993] 3 CLJ 167
    Nyap Kui Fah v Len On Contractor [1978]1 MLJ 208
    Hassan v Ismail [1970] 1 MLJ 210
    Tan Ah Kian v Haji Hasnan [1962] MLJ 400
    Mensa Mercantile (Far East) Pte Ltd v Ekobina (M) Sdn Bhd [1989] 2 MLJ 170.
    Tan Ah Kian v Haji Hasnan [1962] MLJ 400
    Mensa Mercantile (Far East) Pte Ltd v Ekobina (M) Sdn Bhd [1989] 2 MLJ 170.
    Associated Pan Malaysia Cement Sdn Bhd v Syarikat Teknikal & Kejuruteraan Sdn Bhd [1990] 3
    MLJ287
    Mohd Said Hasan Kamouna v Ferrari (M) Sdn Bhd [1998]3MLJ
    Chye Fook & Anor v Teh Teng Seng Realty Sdn Bhd [1989] 1 MLJ 308
    Eng Mee Yong & Ors v V Letchumana [197912 MLJ 212, PC (Appeal from Malaysia).
    Ganam d/o -Rajamany v Somoo slo Sinniah [1984] 2 MLJ 290
    Sakinas Sdn Bhd v Siew Yik Hau & Anor [2002] 5 MLJ 497
    Yeow Kim Pong Realty Ltd v Ng Kim Pong [1962] MLJ 118, PC (Appeal from Malaysia).
    Sharikat Eastern Plastics Industry v Sharikat Lam Seng Trading [1972] 1 MLJ 21.
    Sim Chio Huat v Wong Ted Fui [1983] 1 MLJ 151
    Cheah Khoon Tee v. Crimson Development Sdn Bhd [1999] 8 CLJ 79.
    Quah Ban Poh v Dragon Garden Pte Ltd [1985] 2 MLJ 159
    Wong Kup Sing v Jeram Rubber Estate Ltd [1969]1MLJ245
    Kilmer v British Columbia Orchard Lands Ltd [1913] AC 319)
    Siah Kwee Mow v Kulim Rubber Plantation [1979]2MLJ 190
    Barclay v Messenger (1874) 30 LJ 351
    Lock v Bell [1931] Ch 35; Howe v Smith (1884) 27Ch D 89,
    White v Ross [1960] NZLR 247
    KL Finance Bhd v Yap Poh Khian Tea Sik Eng & Anor (Interveners) [1992]1 MLJ 472
    Wang Kup Sing v Jeram Rubber Estates Ltd [1969] 1 MLJ

    Discharge by Breach

    Hochster v Dc la Tour. 1 (1853) 2-El & BI 678; 118 ER 922


    Lovelock v Franklyn (1846) 8 QBD 371; 115 ER 916
    Frost v Knight (1872) LR 7 Ex 111
    Universal Cargo Carriers Corp v Citati55 [1957] 2 All ER 70.
    Freeth and Another v Burr (1874) LR 9 CP 208.
    The Mersey Steel and Iron Co Ltd v Naylor, Benzon & Co (1884) 9 App Cas 434, HL
    Hongkong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd [1962]2QB26.
    Choo Yin Loo v SK Visuvalingam Pillay (1930) 7 FMSLR 135.
    Sooltan Chund v Schiller (1878) ILR 4 Cal 252
    Hwa Chea Lin & Anor v Malim Jaya (Melaka) Sdn Bhd [1996] 4 MLJ 544
    Choo Yin Loo v Visuvalingam Pillay (1930) 7 FMSLR 135
    Wong Poh Oi v Gertrude Guok & Anor [19661 2 MLJ 134
    Rasiah Munusamy v Lim Tan & Sons Sdn Bhd [1985] 2 MLJ 291, SC.
    Freeth v Burr (1874) LR 9 CP 208
    Ching Yik Development Sdn Bhd v Setapak Heights Development Sdn Bhd [1997] 1 AMR 89, CA.
    Kluang Wood Products Sdn. Bhd & Anor v Hong Leong Finance & Anor [1999] 1 MLJ 193, SC.
    Ban Hong Joo Mines Ltd v Chen & Yap Ltd [969] 2 MLJ 83, FC

    You might also like