BQS507

CONSTRUCTION
LAW II

ASSIGNMENT 1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

01 Introduction to
Contract Act 1950

02 Introduction to
Section 71 CA 1950

03 Lawsuit Summary

04 Question 1

05 Question 2
Contract Act 1950
 Section 71,
Contract Act 1950
‘Obligation of person enjoying benefit of non-gratuitous act’

● “ Where a person lawfully does anything for another person, or delivers

anything to him, not intending to do so gratuitously, and such other person
enjoys the benefit thereof, the latter is bound to make compensation to the
former in respect of, or to restore, the thing so done or delivered. ”

ILLUSTRATIONS

(a) A, a tradesman, leaves goods at B’s house by mistake. B treats

the goods as his own. He is bound to pay A for them.
(b) A save B’s property from fire. A is not entitled to compensation
from B, if the circumstances show that he intended to act
gratuitously.
 Lawsuit Summary

.. .. ..

DAY 1 DAY 3 DAY 5

DAY 2 DAY 4
.. ..
 Is there a legally binding
contract between the
Plaintiff and the Defendant ?
Answers
∙ Contract can be determined as an agreement between private parties
creating mutual obligations enforceable by law. The basic elements
required for the agreement to be enforceable contract are mutual assent,
..
expressed by a valid offer and acceptance, consideration, capacity, and
legality.

∙ Based on the definition, obviously the answer is no because there is

contractual relationship between the Defendant and the Plaintiffs

∙ This means the Defendant only form a legal agreement with AS Contractor
which have the direct deal and all the payment for construction works will
be paid to them. After that, the Plaintiffs will receive their payment from
the contractor.

∙ It shows that the Plaintiffs cannot be considered as the parties involved in

the contract with the Defendant as the client for this project.

∙ In terms of privity of contract, only parties to a contract are allowed to sue

each other to enforce their rights and liabilities and no stranger is allowed
to confer obligations upon any person.
 Is there a legally binding
contract between the Plaintiff
and the Defendant ?

Related Case

• Case Winterbottom v Wright [1842]

• A suit by an injured coachman against the supplier of a coach
whose defective wheel had caused him injury. Although the action
apparently sounded in tort, Lord Abinger relied primarily on the
absence of a contract in denying recovery: "There is no privity of
contract between these parties; and if the plaintiff can sue, every
passenger, or even any person passing along the road, who was
injured by the upsetting of the coach, might bring a similar action.
Unless we confine the operation of such contracts as this to the
parties who entered into them, the most absurd and outrageous
consequences, to which I can see no limit, would ensue.
Is the Plaintiff entitled to claim
against the Defendant pursuant
to S 71, CA 1950 ?

Answer

Related Case
In the leading case of Siow Wong Fatt v Susur Rotan Mining Ltd & Anor [1967] 1 MLRA 53, the
Privy Council held that before a claim under section 71 may succeed, it must be shown that the
doing of the act or the delivery of the thing:
I. Must be lawful

Ii. Must be done for another

Iii. Must not be intended to be done gratuitously

Iv. Must be such that the other person enjoys the benefit of the act or the delivery.

All four requirements must be met before a claim can succeed on the principle
of quantum meruit.”
 Conclusion

Question 1 Question 2
.. ..