Introduction

 good way of how to answer a legal essay question in the introduction would be:
“This essay will refer to the weaknesses of the… Act and analyze effects of the
implementation upon…”
The introduction should also provide a roadmap to a user by illustrating structure used in a
paper. A classic example of law essay is following:
“The essay will be divided into four main sections. In section I, the essay will provide an in-
depth understanding of … Act. In section II, essay will examine the implementation of the act
and in Section III, the essay will critic the amendment instrument and finally indicate the
position in the argument in section IV.”
Body paragraph
“In reference to section… Act… law clearly indicates that …” Or “In case of … vs. …”

1.  Introduction

Contract, also known as the enforceable agreement, is an exchange of promises

between two or more parties that involve from refraining or doing a specific act voluntarily
and have the intention to create legal relations. A contract may be in the form of oral, written
or conduct. Its existence ensures a legally enforceability of an obligation on all parties
involved. Contract is important as it is the method the court uses to determine whether an
agreement has been reached or breached. It has become part of our daily lives; throughout
our day, we make contracts everyday with different parties. Contract may sometimes be
viewed as a barter system as there is always an exchange of monetary, item or services and
a detriment in order to get something in return, which is referred as consideration. Section 26
of the Contracts Act 1950 provides that as the general rule, an agreement without
consideration is void. Consideration is defined in Section 2(d) of the said Act as “when, at
the desire of the promisor, the promise or any other person has done or abstained from
doing, or does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or to abstain from doing, something,
such act or abstinence or promise is called a consideration for the promise”. Contracts are
created not only when you sign some agreement but also whenever you buy goods and
services; for instance, the simplest contract in our daily live would be the purchasing of food
at a hawker stall. The buyer would get the food from the seller as an exchange for the
money that he has paid. The underlying principle in the contract law is the outcome of
“consenting minds” (Larson, 2003). Under this theory, it says that no one shall force or be
forced to do something against his personal will. In other words, it means that each party is
free to accept or reject the terms offered by the other.
The law imposes the requirement of consideration, of value, and intention to create a legal
relation. However, it is said under the law that any contract made between family members,
even relatives, is invalid unless it is proven otherwise. One must show a written evidence of
legal terms to prove that there was an intention to create a legal relation when the contract
was established. For instance, Jeffrey told his wife, Amy, that he wants to give the house
that they are staying to her. Due to this statement made by Jeffrey, Amy has been doing
chores and maintaining the house in good condition, which she does beyond her
responsibility of a housewife. In this case, a legal relation was intended to be established
although there was no written evidence. The jury might consider this as a legal contract of
words between the two parties. empower the parties to resolve their disputes by mutual consent
and in a manner that best serves the needs of the children involved. With the proposal for the
establishment of family court, it is very important for the issues on interpretation and effect of
domestic contract to be highlighted. This paper discusses and compares the approaches which the
courts applied in dealing with domestic contracts and commercial contracts. Research methodology
adopted in this paper are statutory and doctrinal analysis.

In Malaysia, the contract law is based on the English law which focuses on the principles decided by
the courts. Although the laissez-faire principle is applied where parties are free to agree on terms of
the contract but when dispute arise, the court retains the power in interpreting and giving effect to
terms of the contract. Other than the rules of interpretation, the common law contract also applies
the principle of intention to create legal relation whereby parties of agreements which fall under
family, social and domestic agreement is deem not to have the intention to create legal relation.1
This means, in a general sense, agreements entered between husband and wife or between parent
and child are not legally binding. However, despite the general presumption that agreement
between family members does not have any intention to create legal relations, it is common under
the family law that spouses entered into agreements before the marriage, during the marriage, upon
divorced and after divorced. Section 56 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 clearly
provides for domestic agreement or arrangement to be referred to the court to express an opinion
as to the reasonableness of the agreement or arrangement. It is interesting to see that there are
different approaches applied by the courts in interprating domestic contracts compared to general /
commercial contracts.

A domestic contract refers to agreement between persons having family relationship and despite
the general rule of contract, that parties in social, domestic and family agreements do not have
intention to create legal relations, domestic contracts are legally binding. In the context of family
law, domestic contracts normally involves marriage contracts and separation agreements which
includes among others; pre-nuptial agreement, settlement agreement, division of matrimonial
property agreement and custody of children agreement. Despite the common nature and structure
of domestic contract as a typical agreement, there are concerns by the family law practitioners that
domestic contracts should be interpreted differently from the commercial or other types of contract
and judges should have special or additional factors of consideration in giving effect to the contracts.
In Malaysia, there is a proposal for the formation of a Family Court to improve procedures and
providing a better service to families. The main objective of the Family Court is to empower the
parties to resolve their disputes by mutual consent and in a manner that best serves the needs of
the children involved. With the proposal for the establishment of family court, it is very important
for the issues on interpretation and effect of domestic contract to be highlighted. This paper
discusses and compares the approaches which the courts applied in dealing with domestic contracts
and commercial contracts. Research methodology adopted in this paper are statutory and doctrinal
analysis.

For agreement under this category, the general presumption that the court applies is that the parties
do not intend to have or create legal relation.

Choo Tiong Hin & Ors v Choo Hock Swee – agreement between relatives. Husband and
wife lived in a house on a farm in Singapore in 1916. They had 2daughters, 5
adopted sons. Most of the family members, including their grandchildren lived
together on the premises. Those who were of aged worked on the farm a n d i n o t h e r
b u s i n e s s e n t e r p r i s e s . I n 1 9 5 3 t h e w i f e d i e d . I n 1 9 5 5 , f o l l o w i n g numerous
family quarrels, the husband left the family home, and later sued 3 of his adopted sons
and 2 of his grandsons for possession of the farm and the family house and as well as
damages for trespass. The defense contended that there were contracts between the man
and the three adopted sons whereby the latter agreed to work for the former for the
acquisition of wealth to be administered by him. They claimed that having been
adopted and having helped in the farm there was an intention to create legal relations. The
court held that the agreements were not intended to create legal relations and were
therefore not binding in law as contracts.
https://www.coursehero.com/file/p26jsb1/Contrast-with-Choo-Tiong-Hin-Ors-v-Choo-Hock-Swee-
agreement-between-relatives/

In Choo Tiong Hin & Ors v Choo Hock Swee,26the respondent and his wife started a farm. In
due course, they adopted five sons (appellants). Everyone helped in the farm which grew into
a successful family business. After the wife died, the respondent remarried and as a result of
which, he left the family home. The respondent brought an action claiming possession of the
farm from his adopted sons and a declaration that he was the owner of the property. The
appellants claimed that they were entitled to an equal share as they had helped in the creation
of the family wealth. The court held that there was no intention to create legal relations.
https://www.coursehero.com/file/p58cdk8/In-Choo-Tiong-Hin-Ors-v-Choo-Hock-Swee-26-the-
respondent-and-his-wife-started-a/

 These agreements between families are not enter into legal relations so, there is no
intention to create legal binding.

Although the contract Act 1950 is demand of valid contract. case-law clearly dictates
the necessity of this demand. However instances no purpose to come in legal
dealingss can be imputed. For the intent of set uping the purpose of the parties.
understandings are divided into two classs ; I. Business / commercial

two. Domestic understanding

https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/contract-law/principal-of-contract-law-essay.php

Choo Tiong Hin & Ors v Choo

Hock Swee (1959) 25 MLJ 67
… an agreement is not a
contract in the strict sense of
the word, unless it is the
common intention of the
parties that it shall be legally
enforceable. Such an intention
is
normally inferred from the
nature of the agreement.
For instance, in the case of
agreements regulating
commerce for business, it is
obvious
that the parties intend legal
consequences to follow;
The presumption is that there
is an intention to be bound.
However, if one can show that
there
is no such intention, the
presumption is rebutted. Onus
of proof to rebut falls on the
one
alleging that there is an
intention
Choo Tiong Hin & Ors v Choo
Hock Swee (1959) 25 MLJ 67
… an agreement is not a
contract in the strict sense of
the word, unless it is the
common intention of the
parties that it shall be legally
enforceable. Such an intention
is
normally inferred from the
nature of the agreement.
For instance, in the case of
agreements regulating
commerce for business, it is
obvious
that the parties intend legal
consequences to follow;
The presumption is that there
is an intention to be bound.
However, if one can show that
there
is no such intention, the
presumption is rebutted. Onus
of proof to rebut falls on the
one
alleging that there is an
intention
Choo Tiong Hin & Ors v Choo
Hock Swee (1959) 25 MLJ 67
… an agreement is not a
contract in the strict sense of
the word, unless it is the
common intention of the
parties that it shall be legally
enforceable. Such an intention
is
normally inferred from the
nature of the agreement.
For instance, in the case of
agreements regulating
commerce for business, it is
obvious
that the parties intend legal
consequences to follow;
The presumption is that there
is an intention to be bound.
However, if one can show that
there
is no such intention, the
presumption is rebutted. Onus
of proof to rebut falls on the
one
alleging that there is an
intention
Choo Tiong Hin & Ors v Choo
Hock Swee (1959) 25 MLJ 67
… an agreement is not a
contract in the strict sense of
the word, unless it is the
common intention of the
parties that it shall be legally
enforceable. Such an intention
is
normally inferred from the
nature of the agreement.
For instance, in the case of
agreements regulating
commerce for business, it is
obvious
that the parties intend legal
consequences to follow;
The presumption is that there
is an intention to be bound.
However, if one can show that
there
is no such intention, the
presumption is rebutted. Onus
of proof to rebut falls on the
one
alleging that there is an
intention
Choo Tiong Hin & Ors v Choo
Hock Swee (1959) 25 MLJ 67
… an agreement is not a
contract in the strict sense of
the word, unless it is the
common intention of the
parties that it shall be legally
enforceable. Such an intention
is
normally inferred from the
nature of the agreement.
For instance, in the case of
agreements regulating
commerce for business, it is
obvious
that the parties intend legal
consequences to follow;
The presumption is that there
is an intention to be bound.
However, if one can show that
there
is no such intention, the
presumption is rebutted. Onus
of proof to rebut falls on the
one
alleging that there is an
intention
Choo Tiong Hin & Ors v Choo
Hock Swee (1959) 25 MLJ 67
… an agreement is not a
contract in the strict sense of
the word, unless it is the
common intention of the
parties that it shall be legally
enforceable. Such an intention
is
normally inferred from the
nature of the agreement.
For instance, in the case of
agreements regulating
commerce for business, it is
obvious
that the parties intend legal
consequences to follow;
The presumption is that there
is an intention to be bound.
However, if one can show that
there
is no such intention, the
presumption is rebutted. Onus
of proof to rebut falls on the
one
alleging that there is an
intention
an agreement is not a contract
in the strict sense of the
word, unless it is the
common intention of the
parties that it shall be legally
enforceable. Such an intention
is
normally inferred from the
nature of the agreement.
For instance, in the case of
agreements regulating
commerce for business, it is
obvious
that the parties intend legal
consequences to follow;
The presumption is that there
is an intention to be bound.
However, if one can show that
there
is no such intention, the
presumption is rebutted. Onus
of proof to rebut falls on the
one
alleging that there is an
intention
an agreement is not a contract
in the strict sense of the
word, unless it is the
common intention of the
parties that it shall be legally
enforceable. Such an intention
is
normally inferred from the
nature of the agreement.
For instance, in the case of
agreements regulating
commerce for business, it is
obvious
that the parties intend legal
consequences to follow;
The presumption is that there
is an intention to be bound.
However, if one can show that
there
is no such intention, the
presumption is rebutted. Onus
of proof to rebut falls on the
one
alleging that there is an
intention
an agreement is not a contract
in the strict sense of the
word, unless it is the
common intention of the
parties that it shall be legally
enforceable. Such an intention
is
normally inferred from the
nature of the agreement.
For instance, in the case of
agreements regulating
commerce for business, it is
obvious
that the parties intend legal
consequences to follow;
The presumption is that there
is an intention to be bound.
However, if one can show that
there
is no such intention, the
presumption is rebutted. Onus
of proof to rebut falls on the
one
alleging that there is an
intention
https://www.studocu.com/en/document/universiti-malaya/contract-i/tutorial-work/intention-to-
create-legal-relation/3463456/view

Angelina – started business as website designer.

- Completed- business become a success-> had a few big successful client ->bro
and fren discover how successful her business had become ->refuse to pay for
the work she had done.
Mark- Angelina brother(retail business) – give Angelina RM1000 if she updated his business
website.
- Reason refuse to pay: he had onlyoffered the work to help her sister starting out
the business.
Hans – Angelina’s good friend – ask for help for his business for a fee RM1000
- he had only given her work to do on basis if their longtime friendship.