Case Study Analysis

Introduction
the administrators of UTM want to have a grand celebration for ts 25th convocation. They
entered into a contract with One, a famous singer to perform for two hours nightly for three
nights during the said celebration. If One fulfills her contract, she will receive a sum of
RM25000. During the celebration, One lost her voice and could only perform for three (3) hours
only.
Solution:
For proper analysis of the legal issues that are between UTM and One the famous singer, I will
like to apply the following five legal procedures in case analysis i.e. (1) To identify the
underlying facts of the issues between UTM and One, (2) To determine the likely potential law
questions that could be raised in those facts, (3) To identify the best applicable regulations and
rules of law, (4) To analyze each fact with the related application of the law, and (5) To
formulate necessary conclusions on how the law would be applied. The above process is called
FIRAC – The Facts, The Issues, The Rules, The Analysis and The Conclusion.
Facts
As evident that the above case falls under the law of contract of Employment, which is a legal
agreement that comes into being whenever a party agrees to work for a known employer in
expectation for monetary return. This could be seen above where One has agreed to perform for
two hours nightly for three nights during the said celebration under employment agreement. The
terms of the above contract are defined as the rights and obligations that bind UTM and One on
their agreements and this term could come in two main forms i.e. express and implied.
Issues
The facts of the above case has shown that the main issue between UTM and One is breach of
contract One’s inability to perform for the three(3) days that was offered to him by UTM under
the employment agreement. Noticeably, the contract between UTM and One is a unilateral
contract where UTM has clearly specified on performance as a condition upon which One could
be paid. Specifically, UTM clearly specified where it stated that
They entered into a contract with One, a famous singer to perform for two hours nightly for three
nights during the said celebration. If One fulfils her contract, she will receive a sum of
RM25000.
And given the fact that contract is an agreement between two or more parties which creates the
obligation to do or not do something, in this case One is to perform for two hours in three
consecutive nights during the celebration upon which she could be paid RM25000. Meanwhile, a
breach of contract come into being when one of the parties fails to perform its obligation as One
has done in this case. Importantly, this contractual agreement is a unilateral contract that clearly
specified performance as a condition upon which the contract could be binding.
Rules
The contract between UTM and One is a reward offers that usually falls under unilateral
contracts. Under this agreement UTM (The offeror) that is offering the reward cannot force One
the famous singer to fulfill the reward on the singing offer. An alternative to this case is the right
of One the famous singer who happen to be the offeree to sue UTM for a breach of contract,
however, this is only possible if UTM does not provide the RM25000 after One has successfully
fulfilled the contract’s requirements (Performing for three consecutive days).
The law of contract has made this distinction because in unilateral contracts, there would be no
contract until after the specified performance is complete. Since One the famous singer only sing
for half days as specified by the contract, she cannot demand for payment since she failed to
fully perform for three consecutive days as required by the offer from UTM. A related statute to
this kind of agreement could be seen under section 2, part D and E of Malaysia contract Act 136
of 1950, where it states thus:
(d) when, at the desire of the promisor, the promisee 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;
(e) every promise and every set of promises, forming the consideration for each other, is an
agreement;
Analysis
Any legal agreement where only one of the parties makes a legally enforceable promise is
referred to as unilateral contract. A good example is the insurance contract which is a unilateral
contract given the fact that only the insurance company that has made the promise of future
performance and under a unilateral contract only the offeror that could be charged with a breach
of contract. Meaning that UTM can not charge One the famous singer for a breach of contract, a
pure indication that only One the singer that can sue UTM. But very important to know under
this is that One the famous singer has also not fully perform as required by UTM, an indication
that there is no legal obligation from UTM to One the famous singer under their unilateral
agreement.
Conclusion
In a final analysis, evidence and facts in the issue between UTM and One the famous have
established that there was a breach of contract by One the famous singer based on the
requirements in their unilateral contract that was offered by UTM for One to perform for three
consecutive days. But notably in a unilateral contract is that it is only the offeree (One) that can
sue the offeror (UTM) only and only after the offeree (One) has fully performed the
requirements in the contract. But this was not the case in this unilateral contract. Also the
contractual agreement clearly states that one must fully perform for three days before she could
be paid RM25000. But contrary to the agreements, One lost her voice and could perform as
required in the agreement. Very useful in this case study is the Act 136 of Malaysia Contract Act
1950 that has seriously helped in analyzing the contractual issues that are arising from One’s
inability and the probable chance of her winning claims for damages in the breach of contract. In
claiming damages as suggested above, One must have fully perform the conditions in the
contract, which in reality she didn