TUTORIAL 1

Cri�cally discuss the treatment of public policy under Sec�on 24(e) of the Contracts’ Act 1950 by the
Malaysian courts.

Public policy is a founda�onal principle in contract law that seeks to protect the interests of the
public and maintain the integrity of the legal system. In Malaysia, Sec�on 24(e) of the Contracts Act
1950 embodies this crucial no�on by s�pula�ng that an agreement is void if it is contrary to public
policy. The treatment of public policy under this provision by the Malaysian courts has been a subject
of interest and scru�ny for legal scholars. One of the primary challenges in the interpreta�on and
applica�on of public policy under Sec�on 24(e) lies in the inherent broadness of the term. Public
policy is not a fixed, immutable concept; rather, it evolves with the changing norms, values, and
societal interests. As a result, the courts must be cau�ous not to apply the excep�on too liberally, as
this could poten�ally lead to overreaching and excessive judicial interven�on in contractual
arrangements.

The Malaysian courts have typically taken a conserva�ve approach to the enforcement of the public
policy excep�on. Instead of adop�ng a broad interpreta�on of what cons�tutes public policy, they
have tended to adhere to established legal principles and precedents, ensuring consistency and
predictability in contract law. This approach has its merits as it provides a stable legal environment,
fostering commercial transac�ons and encouraging economic growth. However, cri�cs argue that this
cau�ous approach may some�mes lead to undesirable consequences. In instances where a contract
clearly violates public policy, the courts' reluctance to intervene may result in unjust or harmful
agreements being enforced. This raises concerns about the efficacy of the public policy excep�on in
safeguarding the broader interests of society.

To address these concerns, it is crucial for the Malaysian courts to strike the right balance in their
treatment of public policy. They should adopt a case-by-case approach, carefully analyzing the
specific circumstances of each dispute and the poten�al implica�ons on public interests. This would
allow the courts to avoid blanket applica�ons of the excep�on and make more informed and
equitable decisions. Furthermore, the lack of a clear statutory defini�on of public policy in the
Contracts Act 1950 adds to the complexity of its applica�on. While the absence of a rigid defini�on
allows flexibility, it also leaves room for judicial discre�on, poten�ally leading to inconsistent
judgments. To enhance the consistency of outcomes, higher courts could provide comprehensive
guidelines on the scope and applica�on of public policy in contract cases.

In this regard, legisla�ve reforms might be considered to provide clearer statutory language
regarding what cons�tutes public policy. However, any reforms must strike a careful balance to avoid
unduly limi�ng judicial discre�on and to accommodate the evolving nature of public policy in a
dynamic society. Moreover, the treatment of public policy in Malaysia should also consider
interna�onal best prac�ces and compara�ve jurisprudence. By studying how other jurisdic�ons
address public policy concerns, Malaysian courts can gain valuable insights and adapt the principles
that align with the country's unique legal and societal context.

In conclusion, the treatment of public policy under Sec�on 24(e) of the Contracts Act 1950 by the
Malaysian courts is characterized by a cau�ous approach that emphasizes adherence to established
principles. While this ensures consistency and predictability in contract law, it may also lead to
poten�al inconsistencies and inadequate protec�on of public interests. Striking the right balance
between preserving the sanc�ty of contracts and safeguarding public welfare is essen�al. Adop�ng a
case-specific approach, providing clearer guidelines, and drawing from interna�onal prac�ces can
help enhance the effec�veness of the public policy excep�on and promote a more just and equitable
legal framework in Malaysia.

Under Malaysian law, how can a contract be declared to be illegal

The legal treatment of contracts in Malaysia is of paramount importance for fostering commercial
transac�ons and upholding the rule of law. However, not all contracts are considered valid and
enforceable under Malaysian law. Certain contracts may run afoul of legal norms and societal values,
rendering them illegal and unenforceable by the courts. This academic essay delves into the grounds
on which a contract can be declared illegal from the perspec�ve of a judge under Malaysian law,
exploring the legal principles and considera�ons guiding such decisions.

Contraven�on of Statutory Law

A pivotal reason for declaring a contract illegal is its contraven�on of exis�ng statutory laws,
regula�ons, or statutes. These laws are established by the government to safeguard public interests,
maintain societal order, and protect various facets of the na�on. Contracts that involve illegal
ac�vi�es, such as drug trafficking, human trafficking, or bribery, clearly breach statutory laws and are
unequivocally deemed illegal.

Viola�on of Public Policy

Public policy cons�tutes the fundamental principles and values considered crucial for the welfare
and well-being of society as a whole. A contract can be deemed illegal if its purpose or terms run
counter to public policy objec�ves. Such contracts may endanger public health, safety, or morals, and
their enforcement would be an�the�cal to the greater good of the society. For instance, contracts
that seek to evade environmental regula�ons or facilitate unfair business prac�ces may be declared
illegal due to their contraven�on of public policy.

Lack of Required License or Authoriza�on

Certain industries or professions mandate licenses or authoriza�ons to operate lawfully. Contracts

involving ac�vi�es that necessitate such licenses or approvals must comply with these requirements
to be legally enforceable. This ensures that only duly regulated and authorized individuals or en��es
engage in specific ac�vi�es, safeguarding consumers and the public at large from unscrupulous
prac�ces.

Unconscionability

The doctrine of unconscionability addresses contracts that are grossly unfair and oppressive,
exploi�ng the vulnerability of one party. If a contract's terms are patently one-sided, and the
stronger party takes undue advantage of the weaker party's posi�on, the contract may be considered
illegal due to unconscionability. This principle aims to prevent exploita�ve contracts and uphold the
rights of par�es with disparate bargaining power.

Restraint of Trade

Contracts containing restric�ve covenants or unduly burdensome restric�ons on a person's ability to

engage in trade, profession, or business may be declared illegal. Restraints of trade are evaluated
based on their reasonableness and necessity to protect legi�mate business interests. Contracts that
unreasonably hinder compe��on and economic growth contravene public policy and are hence
rendered illegal.
Viola�on of Intellectual Property Rights

Contracts that involve the infringement of intellectual property rights, such as trademarks,
copyrights, or patents, may also be deemed illegal. Intellectual property laws serve to safeguard the
crea�ons and innova�ons of individuals or en��es, and any contract that infringes upon these rights
is void.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the judicial declara�on of a contract's illegality is a cri�cal aspect of contract law in
Malaysia. Judges play a pivotal role in ensuring that contracts comply with statutory laws and uphold
public policy objec�ves. By declaring illegal contracts unenforceable, the courts safeguard public
interests, maintain societal values, and contribute to a just and equitable legal environment for
commercial transac�ons. The grounds for declaring a contract illegal are diverse, ranging from
statutory contraven�ons to infringements of public policy and unfair prac�ces. Through a case-
specific analysis, Malaysian judges maintain the integrity of contract law and uphold the stability of
the na�on's legal system. Their diligent and judicious approach to illegal contracts reinforces the rule
of law and protects the interests of the broader society.
TUTORIAL 2

Based on the fact of the question, the term for the contract on this issue is that HTB needs
to build a theme park and it has been emphasised that the issue of security is an important
aspect. However, HTB failed to comply with the security aspect but he managed to comply
with the other terms. Because of that, JSB, who was disappointed with the results of HTBs
work, refused to pay for the construction that had been done by HTB. As a result, HTB wants
to demand payment. The issue arose is whether HTB can demand payment based on the
doctrine of performance? The doctrine of performance is that it takes place when the parties
to the contract fulfill their obligations arising under the contract within the time and in the
manner prescribed. In determining the doctrine of performance, it is necessary to determine
whether the contract entered into is an entire contact or divisible.

An entire contract is one in which all of the obligations of the parties must be performed
before either party can enforce their rights under the contract. Divisible contract, on the other
hand, is one in which the obligations of the parties can be divided into separate parts, and each
party can enforce their rights with respect to the part that has been performed. It is clearly stated
in the case of, in KP Kunchi Raman v. Goh Bros, In an entire contract, complete performance
by one party is a condition precedent to the liability of the other,in such a contract the
consideration is usually a lump sum which is payable only upon complete performance by the
other party. The opposite of an entire contract is a divisible contract, which is separable into
parts, so that different parts of the consideration may be assigned to severable parts of the
performance which is an agreement for payment. Based on this case it can be concluded that
the difference between an entire contract and a divisible contract is based on the time and
method of payment.

Based on the principles above, it can be seen that the contract entered into between HTB
and JSB is an entire contract under two circumstances. The first circumstance is JSB will have
to pay as much as RM 225000000 when the theme park is completed. From the question there
is no indication regarding separate payment method. The second circumstance is the promise
time to complete is within 42 months, from the question there is no indication regarding
division of deadline in completing the construction. Thus, these two circumstances have
fulfilled the principle of KP Kunchi Raman.
 Since this is an entire contract, there are four exceptions that can be used as defences which
cover all the loopholes in contract regarding unfair terms which are substantial performances,
partial performances, preventing performances as well as root of the contract.

The first exception is substantial performance. Substantial performance is when promisee

completed most of the work. This concept is discussed in the case of Hoenig v. Isaacs, in this
case, the defendant, Isaacs refused to pay the balance of payment that was being claimed by
Hoenig due to the defect on the furniture, the court held that the defect on the furniture do not
touch the root of the contract, hence Hoenig had substantially performed his work. Other than
that, this concept was also stated in the case of KP Kunchi Raman v. Goh Bros, in this case,
the plaintiff had performed his work that was stated in the contract by the defendant however
the defendant denied that the work of the plaintiff had done because he claims that the plaintiff
failed to abide by the specifications stated in the contract. The court held that the plaintff had
substantially performed his work and the doctrine of substantial performance is applied where
in this case, the defendant could not claim his money back. Based on the above discussion, it
can be said that the payment should be made after the work had substantially done.

By applying the concept above in the issue between JSB and HTB, it can be seen that HTB
has completed the theme park where the theme park is stated as one of the terms in the contract.
The issue that arose is about the safety aspect. Based on the situation between HTB and JSB,
the safety aspect is one of the terms in the contract. Hence, it can be stated that HTB has
completed most of the concept.

Second exception is partial performance. Partial performance is the completion of part

of the work that is less than what is described in the main part. In order for the promise maker
to receive payment, it must be proven that there is a recipient of the promise to accept the work
done. If the promisor accepts the work then payment must be made. However, if the promisor
do not accept the work that the promisee had done, then the payment could not be claimed.
This is because, if the promisor accept the work, there will be a new contract for the payment
to be made as stated in the doctrine of Quantum Meruit. This concept was explained in the case
of Sumpter v. Hedges, the court held that, in order that that may be done, the circumstances
must be such as to give that option to the defendant to take or not to take the benefit of the work
done. It is only where the circumstances are such as to give that option that there is any evidence
which to ground an inference of a new contract. Where in the case of work done on land, the
circumstances are such as to give the defendant no option whether he will take the benefit of
the work or not, then one must look on other facts than the mere taking the benefit of the work
in order to ground the inference of a new contract.

Other case that can be referred to is Hasbullah Chan & Associates Architect, “The phrase
‘quantum meruit’ means ‘as much as he has earned’ and it is usually awarded where one party
has conferred on the other a benefit in circumstances where he or she cannot be remunerated
or compensated for that benefit in any other manner and to obtain a quantum meruit, the
plaintiff needs only to show that the defendant has received some kind of benefit and that
benefit has a particular value that can be attached to it. In such situations, if the defendant
refuses to pay or the parties cannot agree on appropriate remuneration, then the court is
empowered to award a quantum meruit on the basis of what the aggrieved party deserved.

By applying this exception to the case between HTB and JSB, it does not apply because the
work done by HTB is a substantial performance.

Moving on to the third exception which is the prevented performance, for this situation
the promisor indeed intends to perform the promise, but the promisor is prevented from doing
so. In other words, the promisee rejects the preparation in accepting the promisors contract.
This concept can be seen in the case Planche v. Colburn. In this case, plaintiff and defendant
entered into a contract where plaintiff was obligated to write a book for the defendant. Plaintiff
almost finished writing the book however upon finishing the book defendant decided not to
continue the contract as well as refuse to pay plaintiff. The court held that the plaintiff was
entitled to payment since the performance was prevented by the defendant itself. In this case,
the prevention must be made by the promisor or contracting party, this means that the
prevention is not made by an outsider.

Applying the above concept in the case between HTB and JSB, so the exception for this
enforcement prevention performance cannot be applied by HTB.

The last exception is root of the contract that does not involve the fundamental basis of
the contract. If a breach of contract involves the fundamental aspects, then the payment must
be made for the work done.This concept was explained in the case of KP Kunchi Raman,
which stated that not every breach of a contract term allows the employer to avoid paying the
agreed price. Only breaches that are fundamental to the contract, such as abandoning the work
when its only half completed, can excuse the employer from payment. If the breach is not
fundamental, the employer must still pay the price and can later file a claim for the defects and
omissions. Alternatively, they can reduce the price based on the value the work lost due to the
defects and omissions. The usual measure is the cost of rectifying the issues to determine the
reduction in the price. Another case that can be referred to is Bolton v. Mahadeva where the
cost of repair to defects in workmanship amounted to between one-third and one-quarter of the
contract price, the extra cost to the defendant in this case of nearly a third of the contract price
showed that the plaintiff had not substantially performed his contract. Counsel for the plaintiff
contended that the court must consider both the nature of the defects and the proportion between
the cost of rectifying them and the contract price.

By applying the above concept in the case of HTB and JSB, it can be seen that HTB has
rectified their work once, so based on this it can be described that 100% of the damages have
been rectified by a few percentages. So, for example if the total loss is RM50,000 and taking
into account the rectification work done by HTB, the extent of the loss can be decreased. This
has all been summed on the basis of the contract.

It can be concluded that out of the four exceptions, HTB can apply exceptions 1 and 4 to
claim payment. However, we still need to examine the aspect of time, as time is an important
factor in a contract.

According to Section 56 of the Contract Act, if time is a crucial aspect of the contract, the
failure to complete the contract on time will render it voidable and capable of being cancelled.
If the aggrieved party wishes to continue the contract, then time is not a crucial aspect of the
contract. Time is considered essential when the aggrieved party gives notice to complete the
work. When the aggrieved party choose to continue with the contract even though the stipulated
time has been violated, the aggrieved party cannot claim for compensation this was mentioned
in the case of Sim Chio Huat v Wong Ted Fui, where the judges stated that if in a contract in
which time is of essence, a party fails to perform it by the stipulated time, the innocent party
has the right either to rescind the contract or treat it as still subsisting. If he treats it either
expressly or by conduct as still conducting, the contract exists but time ceases to be of the
essence and becomes at large.
 Applying this to the case between HTB and JSB, time is not considered crucial, because
JSB have never gave a notice about time to HTB hence JSB cannot claim damages and must
pay HTB.

In conclusion, addressing the main issue raised above, the contract entered between HTB
and JSB is entire contract. Hence, HTB is entitle to used the exceptions provided by the law
which are substantial performance and root of the contract.

Based on the arguments brought by the plaintiff above, the defendant can raise a defence in
order to exclude liability. So in determining whether there is a breach of the fundamental terms
of the contract, we need to look at several approaches in determining the breach of fundamental
terms. The first approach is the classical approach where it refers to a method that looks at
how important a term is in the contract. This is have been mentioned in the case of Abdul Razak
Bin Datuk Abu Samah v Shah Alam Properties Sdn Bhd where judge Gopal Sri Ram
explained the classic method by classifying terms in a contract based on the level of importance
of the terms. Under this classical approach, there are two categories, which are warranty and
condition.

Under the classical approach, there are two categories, the first is condition and the next
one is warranty. Terms of conditions are an important matter in the contract while warranty
terms are a less important matter in the contract. This concept can be seen in the case of
Poussard v Spiers and Bettini v Gye. In this case, failure to appear on the day of the
performance is a breach of condition while failure to attend the rehearsal is a breach of warranty
as in the case of Bettini v Gye. Based on these two cases, it can be seen that, as an opera singer,
being present during a concert is an important term while not being present during a rehearsal
is an unimportant matter. There is a difference here because the basic terms of the contract
entered into by an artist is to perform. Therefore, the presence to come during the performance
is more important than the presence during the rehearsal. The effect of breaching the terms and
conditions of the contract is cancellation of the contract, while the effect of breach of warranty
is to demand compensation as stated in the case of Abdul Razak Bin Datuk Abu Samah.

Next, is the modern approach. Modern approach is to look at the seriousness of the effects
that occur as a result of breaching the terms of the contract. This concept was mentioned in the
case of Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd V. Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd [1962]. In this case,
what is seen is not the condition but by seeing whether the parties in the contract do not obtained
any benefit promised in a contract. Therefore, if the party does not get any benefit from the
contract, then he is given the right to cancel the contract based on Section 65 of the Contract
Act. While, if the person still obtains the benefits from the contract but there is a defect in the
benefits then the right granted or the right to claim for compensation is based on the Section 74
of the Contract Act.

Based on these two approaches, it can be seen that the difference is in the way of
interpretation in giving rights to the party who was frustrated where the classical approach
looks at the importance of the terms in a contract while the modern approach looks at the
seriousness of the effects that occur as a result of breaching the terms of the contract. Applying
the above concepts in the HTB and JSB issues, I am more inclined to use the classical method
because it is more comfortable and facilitates the disappointed party to demand justice. So, it
can be concluded that the terms of the safety aspect, is an important matter because it has been
stipulated in the contract that as soon as the construction is completed, a safety inspection will
be carried out. This term will not state if it is not important. In that case, the safety aspect is an
important aspect in ensuring that safety problems will not exist in the future that may lead to
lawsuits in the event of future injuries. Therefore, because of that there is a violation of the
conditions that give JSB the right to cancel the contract. Therefore, the breach of contract
committed by HTB is a breach of the basic terms of the contract.

The next issue is whether HTB can claim damages amounting to RM 2250000.00 for the
construction work done? Section 65 provides a voidable contract rescind at the option of the
promisor, and the rescinding party must restore any benefits received from the original party.
Since HTB has breached the contract, JSB has the option to rescind if JSB rescinds the contract,
hence he has to return the benefits by virtue of section 65.

In conclusion, the advice given to HTB is to bring this case to the court because he has the
opportunity to demand payment from JSB
TUTORIAL 3

Isu berbangkit yang boleh dibawa oleh plaintif adalah sama ada berlaku kemungkiran terma asas
kontrak apabila SA menukar tarikh pakej, tempat penginapan dan menghilangkan barang? Sebelum
menjawab isu pertama ini, perlu dikenal pasti sama ada terma-terma tersebut ,erupakan terma nyata
atau terma tersirat. Terma nyata adalah terma yang diterangkan secara jelas di dalam kontrak. Hal ini
dapat dilihat di dalam kes Liverpool City Council v Irwin dimana mahkamah memutuskan bahawa
perayu mempunyai terma nyata di dalam kontrak untuk mengekalkan kawasan umum di perumahan
tersebut dengan membuat pembaikan yang munasabah. Kegagalan untuk berbuat demikian akan
menyebabkan berlakunya pelanggaran kontrak. Manakala terma tersirat merujuk kepada terma yang
tidak dinyatakan secara jelas di dalam kontrak. Merujuk kepada kes Sababumi (Sandakan) v Datuk
Yap Pak Leong, mahkamah memutuskan bahawa mahkamah pihak-pihak dalam kontrak hendaklah
berniat untuk memasukkan terma tersirat ke dalam kontrak, walaupun ia tidak dinyatakan secara jelas
dalam kontrak. Perbezaan kes ini dapat dilihat melalui ungkapan dan pernyataannya dalam kontrak.
Mengaplikasikan konsep di atas, dapat disimpulkan bahawa terma-terma dalam kontrak antara Moon
dan SA iaitu tarikh percutian, taraf bintang hotel dan penjagaan beg di bawah jagaan SA merupakan
terma nyata. Hal ini demikian kerana kesemua terma telah diungkapkan di dalam iklan yang diwar-
warkan oleh SA. Namun begitu, berdasarkan terma-terma ini tadi berlaku perubahan dan kerosakan
yang dilakukan oleh pihak defendan di mana berlaku perubahan tarikh dari 3-6 Mac 2018 ke 17-20
Mac 2018, berlaku pertukaran taraf hotel dari empat bintang kepada dua bintang, dan berlaku
kecuaian dari pihak SA apabila bagasi milik Moon yang beranggaran RM500.00 hilang. Maka dalam
menentukan sama ada berlakunya kemungkiran terma asas kontrak, kita perlu melihat kepada
beberapa pendekatan dalam kemungkiran terma asas.
Pendekatan pertama ialah pendekatan klasik dimana ia merujuk kepada satu kaedah yang melihat
sejauh mana satu terma itu penting di dalam kontrak. Hal ini disebut dalam kes Abdul Razak Bin
Datuk Abu Samah v Shah Alam Properties Sdn Bhd yang mana hakim Gopal Sri Ram menerangkan
kaedah klasik dengan membahagikan terma kepada dua klasifikasi bersuatu kontrak berdasarkan
tahap kepentingan terma tersebut. Di bawah pendekatan klasik ini, terdapat dua kategori iaitu yang
pertama ialah syarat dan kedua waranti.
Terma syarat merupakan satu perkara yang sangat penting dalam kontrak manakala terma waranti
merupakan satu perkara yang kurang penting di dalam kontrak. Konsep ini dilihat di dalam kes
Poussard v Spiers dan Bettini v Gye. Dalam kes Pousard v Spiers, kegagalan dalam menghadirkan diri
pada hari persembahan merupakan satu pelanggaran kondisi manakala kegagalan untuk menghadirkan
diri sewaktu raptai adalah merupakan satu pelanggaran waranti seperti mana yang berlaku dalam kes
Bettini v Gye. Berdasarkan dua kes ini, dapat dilihat bahawa, sebagai seorang penyanyi opera
menghadirkan diri sewaktu membuat konsert merupakan satu terma yang penting manakala tidak
menghadirkan diri sewaktu raptai atau reharsal merupakan satu perkara yang tidak penting. Terdapat
perbezaan disini kerana terma asas yang dimasuki oleh seorang artis dalam sebuah kontrak adalah
untuk membuat persembahan. Oleh itu, kehadiran untuk datang semasa persembahan adalah lebih
penting daripada kehadiran sewaktu membuat raptai. Kesan bagi pelanggaran terma kondisi kontrak
adalah pembatalan kontrak, manakala kesan bagi pelanggaran waranti ialah menuntut pampasan yang
telah dinyatakan dalam kes Abdul Razak Bin Datuk Abu Samah.
Seterusnya, pendekatan yang keuda ialah modern approach. Modern approach adalah dengan melihat
keseriusan kesan yang berlaku akibat daripada pelanggaran terma kontrak. Konsep ini telah disebut
dalam kes Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd V. Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd (Landmark). Dalam kes
ini, perkara yang dilihat bukanlah syarat tetapi dengan melihat sama ada pihak di dalam kontrak itu
tidak mendapat apa-apa faedah yang dijanjikan dalam satu kontrak. Oleh itu, sekiranya pihak tersebut
tidak mendapat apa-apa faedah dari kontrak, maka dia diberikan hak untuk membatalkan kontrak
berdasarkan Seksyen 65 Akta Kontrak. Manakala, sekiranya dia masih mendapat faedah daripada
kontrak namun wujudnya kecacatan dalam faedah tersebut maka hak yang diberikan adalah hak
pampasan atau menuntut ganti rugi berdasarkan Seksyen 74 Akta Kontrak.
Berdasarkan dua pendekatan ini dapat dilihat bahawa perbezaannya adalah pada cara tafsiran dalam
memberikan hak kepada pihak yang terkecewa yang mana classical approach melihat kepada
kepentingannya dalam sesuatu kontrak manakala modern approach melihat keseriusan kesan yang
berlaku akibat daripada pelanggaran terma kontrak. Mengaplikasikan konsep-konsep di atas dalam isu
Moon v SA, saya lebih cenderung untuk menggunakan kaedah klasik kerana ia adalah lebih selesa
dan memberi kemudahan kepada pihak yang terkecewa untuk menuntut keadilan. Maka, dapat
disimpulkan bahawa terma tarikh pecutian, hotel 4 bintang dan bagasi merupakan satu perkara yang
penting Moon tertarik untuk memasuki kontrak disebabkan terma-terma ini. Sekiranya terma-terma
tersebut bukan seperti yang dinyatakan berkemungkinan Moon tidak ingin memasuki kontrak. Maka,
disebabkan itu berlaku pelanggaran syarat yang memberikan hak kepada Moon untuk membatalkan
kontrak. Oleh itu, pelanggaran kontrak yang dilakukan oleh SA merupakan kemungkiran terma asas
kontrak.
Namun begitu, pihak SA yang merupakan seorang defendan boleh membawa dalihan fasal
pengecualian dalam mengenepikan liabiliti ke atas tuntutan yang dibuat oleh Moon ke atas SA sendiri.
Fasal pengecualian bermaksud fasal yang mengehadkan dan mengecualikan diri dari liabiliti dimana
mahkamah yang akan menentukan penguatkuasaannya. Berdasarkan soalan di atas, terdapat dua fasal
pengecualian yang wujud dan dapat dikenal pasti iaitu yang pertama adalah fasal pengecualian
mengenai ‘hotel penginapan yang disediakan adalah bertaraf empat bintang’, manakala yang kedua
pula adalah fasal pengecualian mengenai ‘sebarang kecurian, kerosakan atau kehilangan harta
kepunyaan penumpang yang hanya akan ditanggung sebanyak RM100.00’. Akan tetapi dalam
menggunakan fasal pengecualian ini, terdapat dua perkara yang perlu dibuktikan atau
dipertimbangkan di peringkat mahkamah.
Bagi perkara yang pertama ianya perlulah ada incorporation atau kemasukan. Incorporation ini
terbahagi kepada dua jenis iaitu incorporation untuk dokumen yang bertandatangan dan incorporation
untuk dokumen yang tidak bertandatangan. Dokumen yang bertanda tangan adalah merupakan satu
dokumen yang mempunyai kuasa mengikat apabila kedua-dua belah pihak menandatangani kontrak.
Hal ini dinyatakan dalam kes L’estrange v Graucob, yang mana plaintif akan terikat apabila tanda
tangannya diturunkan semasa membeli rokok walaupun beliau tidak membaca fasal pengecualian
yang dicetak dengan saiz yang kecil. Manakala, dokumen tidak bertanda tangan merupakan dokumen
yang tidak memerlukan tanda tangan dari kedua-dua belah pihak seperti resit dan tiket. Berdasarkan
konsep di atas, adalah dikenal pasti bahawa fasal pengecualian yang tertera dalam tiket dan resit
merupakan dokumen yang tidak bertanda tangan.
Untuk dokumen yang tidak bertanda tangan, terdapat 3 perkara yang perlu dipatuhi. Pertama adalah
dokumen itu perlulah dokumen kontraktual. Kedua adalah notis yang munasabah. Ketiga adalah notis
itu diberikan sebelum atau semasa kontrak itu dimasuki / temerterai.
Dokumen kontraktual adalah dokumen yang mengandungi terma dan syarat di dalamnya. Konsep ini
dapat dilihat dalam kes Parimala A/P Muthusamy & Ors V Projek Lebuhraya Utara-Selatan (PLUS),
dimana tiket yang dikeluarkan adalah dokumen berkontraktual kerana ia mengandungi terma dan
syarat. Manakala, dokumen yang tidak mempunyai terma dan syarat telah dinyatakan dalam kes
Chapelton V Barry Urban District (UDC) Council dimana mahkamah memutuskan bahawa resit yang
tanpa terma dan syarat hanyalah resit semata-mata dan bukan dokumen yang berkontraktual.
Seterusnya, terma dan syarat yang terkandung dalam satu dokumen perlulah diberikan serentak
sewaktu pembayaran dibuat. Konsep ini disebut dalam kes Burhanuddin bin Haji Jantara v American
International Assurance (AIA). Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa ia adalah dokumenn kontraktual
dimana terma dan syarat yang terdapat di dalam surat terpakai apabila pembayaran secara tunai dan
resit diberikan dibuat secara serentak. Berdasarkan ketiga-tiga autoriti ini, dapat dilihat dalam
membentuk satu dokumen itu kontraktual, ia perlulah mengandungi terma dan syarat dan diberi atau
dibuat secara serentak sewaktu pembayaran dilakukan.
Mengaplikasikan konsep ini ke dalam isu Moon v SA, dapat dilihat bahawa tiket dan resit itu
mengandungi terma dan syarat. Namun, ianya tidak diberikan sewaktu Moon membuat pembayaran.
Maka, disini boleh dikatakan bahawa tiket dan resit itu bukanlah satu dokumen kontraktual.
Notis yang munasabah pula merupakan satu pemakluman yang diberikan kepada pihak yang
memasuki kontrak. Semakin besar pengecualian liabiliti, maka semakin jelaslah notis yang perlu
dipaparkan. Perkara ini dijelaskan di dalam kes Spurling v Bradshaw. Dalam kes ini mahkamah
memutuskan semakin tidak munasabah sesuatu klausa, lebih besar notis yang mesti diberikan
mengenai klausa tersebut. Klausa tersebut hendaklah dicetak dengan dakwat merah dalam dokumen
dengan penanda yang berbentuk tangan dan diwarnakan dengan warna merah yang menunjuk kepada
klausa itu sebelum notis boleh dianggap mencukupi. Seterusnya, kesahan notis dan kepatuhan
seseorang kepada fasal pengecualian adalah bergantung kepada keadaan-keadaan tertentu seperti
mana yang ditekankan di dalam kes Parker v South Eastern Railway Co. Dalam kes ini, mahkamah
telah menggariskan empat keadaan atau prinsip yang menjumlahkan satu notis itu munasabah dan
memadai. Keadaan yang pertama adalah sekiranya pihak yang menerima tiket tidak melihat atau
mengetahui bahawa wujudnya apa-apa tulisan di atas tiket maka dia tidak terikat kepada terma dan
syarat tersebut. Keadaan yang kedua adalah sekiranya dia mengetahui bahawa adanya tulisan dan
mengetahui serta mempercayai bahawa tulisan itu mengandungi terma dan syarat maka dia terikat
dengan terma dan syarat tersebut. Keadaan yang ketiga sekiranya dia tahu bahawa wujudnya tulisan di
atas tiket tetapi tidak mengetahui atau mempercayai bahawa tulisan itu mengandungi terma dan syarat
maka dia masih terikat dengan terma dan syarat. Keadaan yang terakhir sekali sekiranya pemberian
tiket itu dibuat dalam apa jua cara agar orang yang memasuki kontrak dapat melihat bahawa
wujudnya tulisan di atas tiket itu, maka orang tersebut juga terikat dengan terma dan syarat kerana
pemberian itu menjadikan tiket itu mempunyai tiket yang munasabah.
Mengaplikasikan konsep ini dalam soalan, tiada indikasi dalam tiket dan resit yang memaklumkan
adanya notis yang perlu diketahui. Sebagai contoh, di dalam emel yang mengandungi tiket dan resit
tersebut tiada tulisan merah yang meminta agar tiket dan resit perlu dibaca kerana mengandungi
tulisan yang mempunyai terma dan syarat. Seterusnya, Moon tidak melihat dan mengetahui bahawa
wujudnya tulisan yang mengandungi terma dan syarat dalam tiket dan resit tersebut. Maka, tiadalah
notis yang munasabah dari pihak SA.
Seterusnya, notis perlu diberikan semasa atau sebelum kontrak dimasuki kerana sekiranya notis itu
diberikan selepas kontrak itu dimasuki maka notis itu tidak mengikat pihak yang memasuki kontrak
tersebut. Konsep ini telah dijelaskan di dalam kes Olley V. Marlborough Court Hotel, dimana plaintif
ingin menginap di sebuah hotel. Sewaktu pembayaran dibuat di kaunter tiada apa-apa notis atau
makluman yang diberikan. Si plaintif hanya mengetahui wujudnya fasal pengecualian selepas dia
memasuki bilik. Maka, mahkamah dalam kes ini memutuskan bahawa fasal pengecualian tidak
mengikat ekrana ia diberikan selepas kontrak itu temeterai.
Mengaplikasikan konsep ini ke dalam isu Moon dan SA, tiket dan resit yang mengandungi terma dan
syarat diberikan selepas itu dimasuki. Ini menjadikan Moon tidak menyedari bahawa wujudnya fasal
pengecualian daripada SA. Maka, pihak SA telah gagal memenuhi elemen yang ketiga yang mana
notis perlu diberikan sebelum atau semasa kontrak dimasuki.
Berdasarkan kesemua hujahan di atas, memandangkan tiket itu bukan merupakan satu dokumen yang
kontraktual, kemudian tiada notis yang munasabah daripada pihak SA dan seterusnya notis itu tidak
diberikan sebelum atau semasa kontrak itu dimasuki, maka tiada incorporation atau kemasukan yang
telah berlaku. Sungguhpun incorporation ini tiada di dalam fasal pengecualian yang diberikan oleh
SA, ianya masih perlu ditafsir oleh mahkamah. Ini merupakan perkara yang kedua dalam
menguatkuasakan fasal pengecualian.
Perkara kedua ini dikenali sebagai teknik interpretasi tegas. Teknik ini dikenali sebagai contra
proferentem rule. Contra preferentem rule ini diperlukan apabila perkataan yang terkandung di dalam
fasal pengecualian terjumlah kepada perkataan-perkataan yang umum, luas maknanaya dan tidak
jelas. Konsep ni dijelaskan di dalam Ailsa Craig Fishing Co Ltd v Malvern Fishing Co Ltd dimana
dalam mengecualikan liabiliti untuk sebarang kecuaian, terma dan syarat mestilah dinyatakan dengan
jelas dan disebabkan terma dalam kontrak ini tidak jelas mahkamah mestilah menafsirkan
pengecualian tersebut menggunakan contra preferentem rule. Kes kedua yang berkait dengan konsep
ini dapat dilihat melalui kes McGeown v Direct Travel Insurance. Bila mana adanya ketidakjelasan
sesuatu perkataan, mahkamah akan menginterpretasi perkataan tersebut menggunakan contra
proferentem rule.
Apabila kita melihat fasal pengecualian yang diberikan oleh SA kepada Moon adalah didapati bahawa
perkataan-perkataan yang terkandung menimbulkan tanda tanya sama ada fasal pengecualian itu
adalah untuk mengecualikan kecuaian dan/atau kemungkiran terma asas. Sepatutnya apabila fasal
pengecualian ingin mengenepikan salah satu atau kedua-duanya maka perlu ada perkataan yang
sangat jelas di dalam fasal pengecualian tersebut. Konsep ini disebut di dalam kes Premier Hotel Sdn
Bhd V Tang Ling Seng dimana plaintif telah kehilangan barangnya di hotel diatas kecuaian juruwang
yang memberi kunci kepada orang yang salah. Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa perkataan yang
umum tidak memberikan perlindungan fasal pengecualian terhadap kecuaian. Untuk melindungi diri
terhadap liabiliti mengenai kecuaian, perkataan yang digunakan untuk klausa pengecualian terhadap
kecuaian perlulah dirangka dengan jelas dan nyata yang mana perlu wujudnya frasa kata ‘however
caused by/ yang disebabkan kecuaian’. Dengan adanya frasa kata yang jelas dan terang ini, pembaca
akan faham bahawa kecuaian akan dikecualikan dari sebarang liabiliti atau tanggungan.
Kes ini amat penting kerana ia menceritakan bahawa kecuaian yang hendak dikecualikan maka perlu
ada perkataan yang jelas. Seterusnya, rujukan juga boleh dibuat menerusi kes Photo Production Ltd.
Respondents v. Securicor Transport Ltd. Kes ini penting untuk dirujuk kerana ia memutuskan bahawa
kemungkiran terma asas juga boleh dikecualikan daripada liabilti sekiranya perkara yang terkandung
dalam fasal pengecualian adalah sangat jelas dinyatakan di dalam fasal pengecualiannya.
Mengaplikasikan kesemua di atas, dapat dilihat bahawa tiada perkataan yang jelas di dalam fasal
pengecualian yang diberikan oleh SA. Seperti yang kita ketahui, pihak SA telah melanggar terma asas
dan berlaku cuai. Namun perilaku ini tidak dinyatakan secara jelas di dalam fasal pengecualian. Maka,
ia merupakan kuasa budi bicara mahkamah untuk membenarkan fasal pengecualian ini
dikuatkuasakan.
Setelah membincangkan kausa tindakan dan dalihan, isu yang perlu dikenal pasti seterusnya adalah
tuntut remedi. Maka, isu yang berbangkit adalah sama ada Moon boleh menuntut remedi daripada
SA?
Sebagai kesimpulan, adalah dinasihati agar Moon untuk membawa tuntutan kepada SA di mahkamah
kerana Moon mempunyai kausa tindakan yang sangat kukuh dan peluang yang sangat besar untuk
menuntut ganti rugi di bawah Seksyen 74 Akta Kontrak dari pihak SA.