Answers:

Advise Helena to apply for compensation from Winter Mall. Based on the Contract Law,
when Helena entered the mall's car park, she entered into a contract with the mall for the
provision of parking services. The hourly parking rate displayed was an offer made by the
mall, and Helena accepted this offer by taking a parking ticket and entering the car park.
However, the mall failed to fulfill its obligation to provide safe parking facilities, resulting in
damage to Helena's car. Therefore, Helena may have a case against the mall for breach of
contract.
Furthermore, based on Business Law – Lee Mei Pheng & Ivan Jeron Detta, the mall may
be liable for negligence if it can be established that they failed to take reasonable care to
prevent harm to their customers. In this case, if the mall knew or ought to have known that
there was a risk of falling objects from the ceiling, they should have taken measures to
prevent such incidents, such as carrying out regular inspections and maintenance of the car
park. The notice stating "Park at your own risk" may not necessarily absolve the mall of all
liability if it failed to take reasonable care.
In conclusion, Winter Mall must be responsible for Helena’s financial loss.

Question 2
Answers:
 Advise Harry that he has the right to cancel the contract with Ronell. Under the Contracts
Act 1950, misrepresentation is defined as an untrue statement of fact made by one party to
another party, which induces the other party to enter into a contract. Misrepresentation can be
innocent, negligent, or fraudulent.
Based on the information presented, Ronell’s misrepresentation falls under fraudulent
misrepresentation as defined in section 17(a) of the Contracts Act. This is because Ronell
falsely represented a fact, i.e., the land’s condition.
If Harry can establish fraudulent misrepresentation, he may choose to have the contract
rescinded, which will put the parties back in their pre-contractual position. He may also make
a damage claim by Section 19 of the Contracts Act.
If Harry can prove that Ronell made a false statement negligently—that is, without good
reason to believe it to be true—he may also bring a claim against Ronell for negligent
misrepresentation under section 18 of the Contracts Act. The remedy offered under section 18
is the termination of the contract and financial compensation.
Based on Section 17 (b) of the Contracts Act, it is a fraud when it has the element, for
example an active concealment of a fact and the concealment was made by a person who
knows of it.
In the case of Tay Tho Bok & Anor v Segar Oil Palm Estate Sdn Bhd, the court held that
the actions of the defendant amounted to fraud within the meaning of section 17 of Contracts
Art and it is considered voidable due to fraud, as one of the parties involved knowingly
concealed information.
In conclusion, according to the evidence he must support the misrepresentation and the
remedies at his disposal, Harry should consider seeking legal counsel and thinking through
his alternatives under Malaysian contract law.

Question 3 (a)
Answers:
 Advise Bella about how she can void the contract and why she can void it. Voldy made a
misrepresentation of the car's mileage and condition during the negotiation. Based on the
information presented, Voldy's misrepresentation falls under fraudulent misrepresentation as
defined in section 17(a) of the Contracts Act. This is because Voldy falsely represented a fact,
i.e., the car got into a car accident before and the Firebolto was severely damaged.
If Bella can demonstrate that Voldy purposefully implied an untrue thing, she may be
able to take legal action against him for fraudulent misrepresentation under section 17(a) of
the Contract Act. The contract is voidable at Bella’s direction and she can rescind the
agreement, which will restore the parties to their pre-contractual position if she can prove
fraudulent misrepresentation. According to Section 19 of the Contract Act, she can also
demand damages.
Alternatively, Bella may sue Voldy for negligent misrepresentation under Section 18 of
the Contract Act if she can prove that Voldy negligently made a false statement, i.e., if there is
no good reason to believe it to be true. Subject to Section 18 of the Contract Act, available
remedies are termination of the contract and damages.
In the case of Tay Tho Bok V Segar Oil Palm Estate Sdn Bhd, if a party knows a
condition or item that they do not disclose to the other parties involved in the contract, the
contract is considered void.
As a result, Bella has the right to void the contract and sue the dealer for fraud. However,
she must do so within a reasonable amount of time and before any right in the car pass to any
innocent third party.

Question 3 (b)
Answers:

Advise Ronolo about his right to void the marriage contract. Based on the information,
the issue is can Ronolo terminate the marriage contract? Based on Section 17 of the Contracts
Art 1950, fraud is the active concealment of a fact by one knowing the fact. If Ronolo signed
the marriage contract without being informed of Pantsi's severe epilepsy condition because
she hid it from him, he may be entitled to annul the marriage contract.
Marriage is regarded as a legally-binding contract that the parties should enter into
voluntarily and honestly. If one party fails to disclose material information to the other, the
agreement may be deemed void. If Pantsi had epilepsy in this case but failed to disclose it to
Ronolo, Ronolo might consider the marriage contract to be founded on false information and
be entitled to annul it.
In conclusion, Ronolo might be able to cancel the marriage contract if Pantsi concealed
his terrible epileptic condition from him and as a result, he did not know about it when he
signed it.