1.

The time is not the essence of the contract.

1.1

The delayed delivery on behalf of the appellant didnt make he breach the
contract as the respondent agreed to continue the contract.
Case: Sim Chio Huat v. Wong Ted Fui [1983] 1 MLJ 151 1
SALEH ABBAS, F.J IN DELIVERING THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

if in contract in which time is of essence, a party fails to perform it by the

stipulated time, the innocent party has the right either to rescind the
contract or treat it as still subsisting. If he treats it either expressly or by
conduct as still conducting, the contract exists but time ceases to be of
the essence and becomes at large.
Application: From the cited case, Therefore, applying to this case, the act
of the defendant by agreeing to continue the contract and not to repudiate
he contract indicates that the contract was still going on. Thus, the
appellant was not in breach of the contract.
1.2

Time ceases to be the essence of the contract and automatically becomes at

large.

1.0

The defendant was in breach of the MIDA as the headphone was not in merchantable
quality.
1.1

Definition of merchantable quality

Under Section 16 (1)
SALEH ABBAS, F.J IN DELIVERING THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

if in contract in which time is of essence, a party fails to perform it by the

stipulated time, the innocent party has the right either to rescind the
contract or treat it as still subsisting. If he treats it either expressly or by
conduct as still conducting, the contract exists but time ceases to be of
the essence and becomes at large.
Application: From the cited case, Therefore, applying to this case, the act
of the defendant by agreeing to continue the contract and not to repudiate
he contract indicates that the contract was still going on. Thus, the
appellant was not in breach of the contract.
1.2

Time ceases to be the essence of the contract and automatically becomes at

large.
1.2.1

In Danaharta Urus Sdn Bhd v Kekatong Sdn Bhd2, Augustine Paul JCA
interpreted the word discrimination through Article 8(1) of Federal
Constitution where:
one person or class of persons [is discriminated] against others similarly
situated and denies to the former the privileges that is enjoyed by the
latter

1.2.2

Augustine Paul JCA implies that, the respondent was obviously

discriminated the appellant on the ground of appearance.
Application: Referring to the above case, the appellant should be allowed
to dress in respective of the company policy as it was stated in Article
8(1) of Federal Constitution.

[2004] 1 LRC 667