1 / 32

KERELAAN BEBAS: Kontrak bolehbatal

Belum habis translate!!!!!. KERELAAN BEBAS: Kontrak bolehbatal. MGM3351 Dr . Zahira Mohd . Ishan. Batal , Bolehbatal & Tak sah. S. 2(g): perjanjian yang tidak boleh dikuatkuasakan undang-undang adalah batal . Perjanjian batal : ss.25-31.

alijah
Télécharger la présentation

KERELAAN BEBAS: Kontrak bolehbatal

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Belumhabis translate!!!!! KERELAAN BEBAS: Kontrakbolehbatal MGM3351 Dr. ZahiraMohd. Ishan

  2. Batal, Bolehbatal & Taksah • S. 2(g):perjanjian yang tidakbolehdikuatkuasakanundang-undangadalahbatal. • Perjanjianbatal: ss.25-31. • S.25: Perjanjianbataljikabalasan/tujuantaksahsebahagiannya. • Kesan: hak & kewajipantidakterbentukdisisiundang-undang. • S.2(i): sesuatuperjanjian yang bolehdikuatkuasakanolehundang-undangatasopsyensatupihak / lebihdariperjanjian-perjanjianitu, tetapitidakberdasarkanatasopsyenpihak / pihak yang lain adalahsuatukontrakbolehbatal. • Kesan: hak & kewajipanwujuddisisiundang-undang. • s.24: Sebabbalasan / tujuansesuatuperjanjian yang tidaksahdisisiundang-undang. • Kesan: Kontrakbatal • Pihakketiga yang sucihatidantanpapengetahuantentangketidaksahankontrak.

  3. Seksyen14 AK,1950 “Kerelaanbebas” Kerelaanadalahbebasbilatidakdisebabkanoleh- (a) paksaan: s 15; (b) pengaruhtakberpatutan: s 16; (c) tipuan: s 17; (d) salahnyata: s 18; atau (e) khilaf, tertaklukkpd ss. 21, 22 and 23

  4. “Paksaan" : s.15 • Melakukan @ mengancamuntukmelakukanapa-apaperbuatan, yang dilarangolehKanunKeseksaan, atau • Menahan @ mengancamuntukmenahansecarataksah, apa-apaharta, denganmemudaratkansesiapajua, • Denganniatmenyebabkanseseorangitumembuatperjanjian. Huraian: AdalahtakmatansamaadaKanunKeseksaanberkuatkuasa / tidakdimanapaksaanitudilakukan. Illustration: A, on board an English ship on the high seas, causes B to enter into an agreement by an act amounting to criminal intimidation under the Penal Code. A afterwards sues B for breach of contract at Taiping. A has employed coercion, although his act is not an offence by the law of England, and although section 506 of the Penal Code was not in force at the time when or place where the act was done. • KanhayaLal v NBI Ltd:menentukankerelaanbebas.

  5. s.15 termasukdures • Common law: definisisempit ~ terhadkepadakekasaranfizikalsebenar/ancaman/ penahanantaksahterhadapdiripihakberkontrak. • Ekuiti: relifdiberikandalamkespaksaan yang tiadaremedidi common law. • Kini, mahkamahmenggabungkankesan common law & ekuiti.

  6. Dures: Diri & Harta • Durespadadiri: kekasaran / pemenjaraansebenar/ ancaman. :Keseriusanancaman /tindakanterhadap A bergantungpadakebolehan A menghindaritekanan yang dikenakansecaratakpatutkeatasnya. :peluang A utkrelif: buktikanancamanitumendesak A dalamkeputusannya. • Durespadaharta: tidakjelas~ kontrakdimasukiakibatkekasaransebenar/ancaman @ perampasanhartasecarataksah • Ancaman yang menjadiperasugut: Thorne v Motor Trade Association. • Duresekonomi.

  7. MembuktikanPaksaan: i) Melakukan @ mengancamuntukmelakukanapa-apaperbuatan, yang dilarangolehKanunKeseksaan; bukankesalahan tort. ~KanunKeseksaan: gabunganundang-undangkesalahanjenayah.

  8. Penggunaan duress dimahkamah: Kesarmal & Anor v. ValliappaChettiar & Anor[1954] MLJ 119 • Tuntutanplaintif agar instrumenpindahmilikbagiduakepingtanah yang dilaksanakanolehplaintifuntukduadefendanperludiketepikanatasalasanianyadiperolehidenganpengetahuandefendan-defendansecarapaksaanatauduresketikazamanpendudukanJepun. • Mahkamahbicara & MahkamahRayuanmemutuskanduresberlaku. • MajlisPrivijugamengenepikanrayuandefendan.

  9. MembuktikanPaksaan: ii) Terhadapsesiapasahaja @ hanyaplaintif? • Pihak yang dipaksa & pihak yang ditekanuntukberkontrak ~ Perluadahubungan (kepentingandiperolehi) Wong Ah Fook v K’jaan N. Johor , @ ~ tiadahubungandiperlukan(kemanusiaan) iii) Perbuatan / ancamanmenyebabkanpihakitumemasukikontrak?

  10. s.73 AK Bhg VI : “PerihalbeberapaPerhubungan Yang MenyerupaiPerhubungan yang DitimbulkanolehKontrak” ~ Orang yang dibayarwangkepadanya / diserahantarkansesuatudengankhilaf / paksaan. Misalan-misalan: • A and B bersama-samaberhutang $100 kpd C. A telahmembayar $100, tetapi B tanpamengetahuitentangfaktaitu, membayar $100 sekalilagikepada C. C terikatuntukmembayarbalikjumlahitukepada B. (b) Sebuahsyktk’apiengganhantarbarangtertentukpdpenerimakecualidibayardgnsatupembayaranygtidaksahataspengangkutantersebut. Penerimamembayarjumlahituutkmendapatkanbarangnya. Diaberhakmendapatbalikwanglebihansebanyakygdibayarsecarataksahitu.

  11. Chin Nam Bee DvlpSdnBhd v Tai Kim Choo & Ors [1988] “It would be difficult to give effect to s. 73 illustration (b) if the word `coercion' is to be given the meaning as defined in s. 15 of the Act. They appear to be in conflict with each other. Therefore the word `coercion' in the context of s. 73 of the Act should be given its ordinary and general meaning since there is nothing under s. 15 which says that the word `coercion' should apply throughout the Act. The definition of `coercion' in s. 15 should only apply for the purpose contained in s. 14, as s. 14 of the Act specifically says so.”

  12. C.M. Naested v. The State of Perak [1925] FMSLR 185 Fakta: Permohonan P utkgerantanahsebanyak 23,000 ekardiluluskanoleh D. P kemudianbayarsejumlahwanguntukfipengukurantanah yang dikiraberdasarkantanahitusebagaisatublok. Namun, tanahitudibahagikpd 16 bloktetapi P tidakdimaklumkan. Pegawaidaerahmeminta P membuatbayaranukurtanahtambahanataskiraan 16 blok. P menuntutlebihanwang yang dibayarolehejennya. Held: “Under these circumstances, it is impossible to consider the payment as a voluntary one. The parties were not on equal terms. On the one side was the plaintiff, a private individual, and his agents, a mercantile firm, on the other the Government of the State, which had the power of saying "If you do not pay you shall not have your grant". I think that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the money as a payment made without consideration, and under coercion, within the meaning of s. 72 [s.73] of the Contract Enactment.”

  13. KanhayaLal v. National Bank of India Ltd.[1913] ILR XL 598 “the word `coercion' as defined under s. 15 of the Indian Contract Act, (Act IX of 1872) should be confined to the interpretation of the word`coercion' as found under s. 14 of the Indian Act, and that the word `coercion' as found in s. 72 of the Indian Contract Act should be given its ordinary meaning.”

  14. Dures / PaksaanEkonomi • Wujudbilaancamantidaksah (illegitimate) samaadaancamanitusatukesalahanperundangan / kesalahansemata-mata / berlawanandengandasarawam. - Ancamanmenjadiduresbergantungkepadakesanpaksaannyadalamsetiapkes. ~ Tidakcukupjikahanyatekanankomersildikenakan. ~ Tekananitumestilahsuatu yang kerelaanmangsakontrakitutidakdiberikansecarasukarela.

  15. The Universal Sentinel • Trade Union officials threatened to induce the crew of a ship to break their contracts of employment & so to prevent the ship from leaving port. In view of the “catastrophic” financial consequences which the ship owners would suffer if these threats were carried out, it was conceded that they constituted “economic duress”.

  16. Perlis Plantation Bhd v Mohamad Abdullah Ang[1988]: konsepduresekonomitidakwujuddi Malaysia. • MohdFariqSubramaniam v Naza Motor Trading SdnBhd: duresekonomiadalahpaksaankehendak yang merosakkankerelaan. Namunkesinitidakmembincangkan s.15.

  17. “PengaruhTakberpatutan”: s.16 • Urusan yang tidakberhemat(unconscientious) • Def: s.16(1): pertalianantarakeduabelahpihak; dominasikehendakkeataspihak yang lain; memperolehifaedahtakadil. Ragunath Prasad v Sarju Prasad • Common law: 2 kelas PTB: • dominasikehendakkeataspihak yang lain, & • salahgunakewajipanberhati-hatidankeyakinanhasildaribentukhubungantertentu

  18. MuladigunakandalamMorris v. Burroughs(1737) sebagaiperingatankepadaibubapauntukberjaga-jagadalammenjalankankuasamerekakeatasanak-anak (WHD Winder, 1939) • Cooke v Lamotte(1851): PTB digunakandlamkesmelibatkankemungkinanpenyalahgunaanpengaruhpenjaga & in loco parentis, peguam, penasihat spiritual, doktor, atendanperubatan, “and may be said to apply to every case in which two persons are so situated, that one may obtain considerable influence over another”

  19. S. 16(1): “Pertalianantarakeduabelahpihak” tidaksemestinyahubunganistimewa. Morley v Loughnan : ‘unnecessary to show existance of special r/ship between deceased and D, for he has took possession, so to speak , of the whole life of the deceased, & the gift were not the result of the deceased’s own free will, but the effect of that influence and domination’.

  20. s. 16(2): Andaianwujudpenguasaankehendak • Biladiamemegangkuasabenar / zahirkeatasorang lain itu, @ • Biladiaberadadalamperkaitanamanahdenganorang lain itu, @ • Biladiamembuatkontrakdenganseorang yang keupayaanakalnyaterjejaskeranausia, penyakit, /penderitaanakal / jasmani, samaadasementara / kekal. RujukMisalan (a) & (b).

  21. Hubunganfidusiari: • *ibubapa (@ in loco parentis) & anak; • *peguam & klien; • *doktor & pesakit; • * pemegangamanah & cestuique trust / benefisiari; • *penasihat spiritual & sesiapa yang adahubungandengannya; • * antaratunang(jarang-jarang); tetapitidakpadasuamiisteri.

  22. Beberapakes common law: • Allcard v Skinner • Lloyds Bank v Bundy • Tate v Williamson • Smith v Kay • Fry v Lane • Nat West Bank v Morgan • Royal Bank of Scotland Plc v Etridge • Beberapakesdi Malaysia: • SalwathHaneem v Hadjee Abdullah • Polygram Records Sdnbhd v The Search & Anor • Saw GaikBeow v Chong Yew Weng • DatukJaginder Singh v Tara Rajaratnam • Public Finance Bhd v Lee Bee Rubber Factory S.B & Ors • IncheNoriah v Shaik Allie

  23. s.16(3): Urusantakberhiba (Unconscionable) • A protean term; covers unjust/unfair/ immoral bargain. • unconscionable transaction is seen as a result of undue influence by virtue of section 16(3) • Chait Singh v Budin b. Abdullah • Ragunath Prasad v Sarju Prasad

  24. Rebuttal • Plaintiff not relying upon defendant’s advice • No unfair advantage taken / transaction is beneficial to the plaintiff • Fulfillment of duty by defendant to the plaintiff

  25. Effects of Undue Influence • S. 20 of the CA: voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused. Set aside absolutely, or if benefit received, upon such terms or conditions as the court may seem just. Illustration (a) & (b).

  26. “Fraud”: s.17 • 5 instances of fraud (intention to deceive other party). • Courts often interpret s.17 as fraudulent misrepresentation. “Misrepresentation”: s.18 • False statement made by representor with no intention to deceive. 3 instances. Covers negligent (breach of duty of care) and innocent (no duty of care to find out the truth) misrepresentations.

  27. Representation i-Representation of certain fact; not opinion: Bisset v Wilkinson. ii-Addressed to the innocent party Peek v Gurney ii- Induce the other party to enter into the contract. Horsfall v Thomas Mithoolal v Life Insurance Corp

  28. Duty of Disclosure • The representation must be expressed. Silence means no positive statement or action made. Keates v Lord Cadogan Mahn Singh v Guan Soon Transport Ltd. [1955] • Explanation to s. 17: mere silence is not fraud unless there is a duty to speak or the silence is equivalent to speech.

  29. Duty of disclosure • Illustration (a) & (b) of s. 17. i) Contract of Utmost Good Faith / Uberrimaefidei: duty to be honest & truthful ~ full disclosure of material facts. ~ Insurance contract; allotment of shares (prospectus); partnership; contract of guarantee & surety. Abu Bakar v Oriental Fire & Gnrl Insurance Tan Kang Hua v Safety Insurance GohChooi Leong v Public Life Assurance Co. Ltd.

  30. ii) Fiduciary relationship Confidence given to the other party. That other party must show that he’s exercising the due care & trust. ~ not abuse his position ~ must disclose the fact Nocton v Lord Ashburton The duty is not imposed on all confidential relationship: Bell v Lever Brothers Ltd : contract of service.

  31. Exceptions to s. 19: Ordinary diligence / rule of caveat emptor ~ consent caused by misrepresentation or by silence, fraudulent within the meaning of s. 17. Effect of coercion, fraud & misrepresentation: voidable at the option of the party so caused.

  32. LetchemyArumugam v Annamalay: P, illiterate rubber tapper signed a S&P letter (thought it was a mere loan agreement) • Tan Chye Chew & Ors. V Eastern Mining Metals Co. Ltd.: a higher degree of probability for fraud. • DatukJaginder Singh v Tara Rajaratnam • KhengChweeLian v Wong Tak Thong • Derry v Peek • Weber v Brown • Keong man v Kishen • Lau HeeTeah v Hargill Engineering SdnBhd

More Related