Running Head: Group Case Study

GROUP CASE STUDY

 2
Group Case Study

Table of Contents

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 3

Issue ........................................................................................................................................... 3

Explanation on the relevant law ................................................................................................. 3

Argument discussion based on court decisions ......................................................................... 5

Analysis of applied laws and cases ............................................................................................ 6

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 7

References .................................................................................................................................. 8
 3
Group Case Study

Introduction

Contract refers to agreements that facilitated legal binding and enforcing within two parties

(Giliker, 2016). This study has focused on debated study about capacity of contract law.

Capacity is one of the essential elements within Contract law that defines power in order to

enter any contract they wish. In this study, a situation is being analyzed to understand its legal

decisions.

Issue

Jane and the owner of Good Car Sdn Bhd have decided to take legal action against James.

James is brother of Jane, who had borrowed RM 50,000 and made a contract with Good Car

regarding buying of Proton X70. James had paid only RM70, 000 from its own to pay part of

car payment and does not pay rest, also after borrowing it from his sister. James is 16 year

age and self employed as a signer and influencer of Instagram. However, James had used

those borrowed Rm50, 000 in order to live a fabulous lifestyle. This is the reason, both the

car owner and his sister felt cheated by James and take decision for legal actions. According

to the plaintiffs James had failed to maintain his contract and so he can be sued in charge of

breaching Contract Law of Malaysia, 1950, in order to get adequate justice.

Explanation on the relevant law

Malaysia Contract Law usually enforced and governed by Contract Act 1950. This is a

remedy of solution of particular performances to analyze existence or validity of contract

with two people. This law clearly stated that the terms within the contract must be defined

clearly ad in certain way. Therefore, this law clearly stated that contract performances should

be precise and exact and should be accordance to the promises of parties. Section 38 (1)

under this law provided that all the parties within any contract should offer or perform their

given promises, unless and until such offers has been managed without by any law (Hamid,

& Kamaruddin, 2018). Any contract of Malaysia must fulfilled six elements, which are
 4
Group Case Study

proposal or offer, acceptance, consideration, legal relations, capacity to contract and free

consent. In this case, Good Car had accepted to sell Proton X70 in consideration of RM120,

000 prices. On the other hand, Jane accepts the proposal to help James in consideration of

RM50, 000.

James had created mutual agreement with both the plaintiffs in written and oral format

respectively. However, in these agreements capacity element of Contract Law has not been

included. This is because, according to Age of Maturity Act, 1971 of Malaysia, it has been

clearly stated that age of majority is considered as 18 and it's above (Hamid, & Kamaruddin,

2018). In Contract law, the capacity defined as that each and every person has competency to

enter contract, if the person is sound minded, entered the age of majority and nor been

disqualified to enter the law in the past, according to Section 12 (1). The last elements of the

contract law describe the validity of contract law, as stated under Section 10 (1) (Giliker,

2016). This section implies that all agreements are validated to be contracts if those are made

through involved parties’ free consent. Section 14 states that provided consent c only if

considered if it is not made by coercion, under influence, fraud, misrepresentation and any

mistake.

However, capacity limitation of contract law often creates various issues, as this limitation

has its own reason. The first and foremost reason is to protect minor with resort to lack of

experience and immaturity of minor people. Secondly, the limitation also used to avoid any

discrepancies due to agreement with minor people. Therefore, it implies that minor entering

within contract law is completely void. On the contrary, contract is considered to be valid by

assessing the necessity of the subject and specific goods, such as shelter, food, education and

many more under Contracts (Amendment) Act 1976 (Hamid, & Kamaruddin, 2018).

Moreover, a minor can also be considered with contract, if the minor become involved within

any unlawful act, such as fraud. This indicates indirect enforcement of contract law.
 5
Group Case Study

However, according to Section 115, if a minor person misrepresents age intentionally to

another party, then it does not considered as suit. Moreover, other exceptions includes

Marriage contract that is below 21 years old (Giliker, 2016).

Argument discussion based on court decisions

In the context of Malaysia minor refers to all persons whose age are below 18 that is

according to Harmonizing to Age of Majority Act (1971). As per case study of Tan He Juan v

Teh Boon Keat [1934], a baby was as a plaintiff, who had executed transfers of land. The court

decided that the transfer is illegal as baby is included within minor and does void to contract

law capacity requirement. This implies that capability limitation under contract law is being

made in order to protect minor person from any fraud and crime, with respect to their lack of

experiences and immatureness. On the other hand, it also can help any business or person to

do void contract with minor person. On the other hand, there are exceptions under section 69

of the law. It can be explained through Government of Malaysia vs Gurcharan Singh & A;

Ors [1971], where Government hand sued a minor and other two defendants for breaching of

contract and claimed amount if RM11,500.

This sum was the amount spent by the Government for education purpose of minor. In this

case during the time of contract the accused was minor, those decisions made by Government

declared this case as void of contract, but had considered the situation under necessities of the

minor. Therefore, this case had been analyzed based on ‘contracts for necessity’ under

Contract (Amendment) Act (1976). However, due to this free of liabilities of minors, the

strategy often used to misuse this, which is referred as fraud done by minor. Contract law of

Malaysia can use any minor, if he or she is involved in any improper act or wrong civil act.

Therefore, this is the only reason, where a minor person can be sued faltering their age as

being within minority.

 6
Group Case Study

However, this type of complaint can be diluted if the minor person misrepresents their age

and this convinces anyone for loan or specific goods. This is because in this contract is

considered to be null. This can be explained through R Lesile Ltd v Sheil [1914] 3 KB 607

case, where accused take loan from plaintiff company, by misrepresenting own age. In this

case playoff failed to claim any justice as that action can implement minor within enforceable

contract. On the contrary, in the case of Roberts v. Gray [1913] 1 KB 520, the claimant

succeeded to claim damages regarding breach of contracts and wasted by 1500 pound, but

defendant receive the minor’s benefit.. In this case, the minor defendant entered within an

agreement with the plaintiff to become a professional billiards player, to go on a tour. The

issue arises, while defendant refused to attend the tour.

Analysis of applied laws and cases

James is 16 years old, self employed and is quite famous publicly and slow in social media.

This social status clearly indicates that James has not any money issues and also cannot

misrepresent its age. James ether has not made the venture payment of Good Car or not

repays the amount to his sister. Therefore, this clearly indicates fraud in minority case and

refer to the case of Roberts v. Gray [1913] 1 KB 520, James must be fined or this. James can

avoid this issue by misrepresenting his age to the Good Car as supported by the case study of

R Lesile Ltd v Sheil [1914] 3 KB 607. This is due to its fame image and also due to the

involvement of his sister against him. Based on the situation of these two case studies, it is

quite clear that claimants will be successful to instigate judge take against him. However,

there is an option, through which James can apply as a defendant that is on the basis of

necessity.

This can be justified through a case study of Nash v. Inman [1908] 2 KB 1. In this case

Savlie Row a tailor had supplied high-class clothing worth 154 euro. Then the tailor claims

the price on the basis of breach of contract. However, defendant did not enforced under
 7
Group Case Study

Contract act, as its father is in a good position. In this case, the claimant failed to establish the

necessity of the provided goods. Thus, James can defend himself stating that the car provided

by Good Car is not his necessity and he is self employed. However, defendant has to consider

claim of his sister and have to provide her RM50,000 along with fine, similar to the case of

Roberts v. Gray [1913] 1 KB 520.

Conclusion

This study can be concluded as that, capacity and its associated regulations within Contract

Law of Malaysia is quite complex. The given case has been analyzed and recommended

based on the minority enforcement act of Contract law. The capacity limit has been contract

based in protection of their immatureness. However, Malaysia also considers various

exceptions that can be considered to provide adequate justice, while any minor person done

any wrong civil act or any fraud. However, this case is used to analyze based on the

necessities of specific goods and its consideration and misrepresentation of age.

 8
Group Case Study

References

Giliker, P. (2016). Studies in the contract laws of asia: Remedies for breach of contract. The

International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 65(4), 969-971.

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0020589316000348

Government of Malaysia vs Gurcharan Singh & A; Ors [1971]

Hamid, A. G., & Kamaruddin, Z. (2018). INTERNATIONAL PARENTAL CHILD

ABDUCTION IN THE MALAYSIAN LEGAL CONTEXT: ADDRESSING ISSUES

AND THE WAY FORWARD*. IIUM Law Journal, 26(2), 275. Retrieved from

https://search.proquest.com/docview/2164441317?accountid=188056

Nash v. Inman [1908] 2 KB 1

R Lesile Ltd v Sheil [1914] 3 KB 607

Roberts v. Gray [1913] 1 KB 520

Tan He Juan v Teh Boon Keat [ 1934]