LESSON LEARNT

The case of Merong Mahawangsa Sdn Bhd & Anor V Dato’ Shazryl Eskay bin
Abdullah (2015) can be distinguished from the instant case because the Federal Court had
erred in relying primarily on fact and law same as this case. According to this case, it is a
contract that violates the public policy as defined by Section 24(e) of the Contracts Act 1950
and will therefore be voided if it is an agreement to provide services to persuade a public
decision maker to award a contract. For this case, considering the project encompassed
public works, the learned trial judge determined that the contract was against public policy
and that the plaintiff had engaged in "influence peddling," making the deal unconstitutional.
The agreement was therefore void and unenforceable. On this view, the learned judge would
not have the needed to conclude that the plaintiff was not entitled to the compensation
specified in the agreement since the conditions regarding payment were unreliable.

In this case, we can interpret that the plaintiff claimed that the defendant's assistance
in submitting the quotes constituted the plaintiff's contractual responsibility, not securing the
contract's award. This was demonstrated, among other things, by the numerous exchanges
of letters with the defendants and the numerous changes the plaintiff made to the quotes at
the defendant's request. In response to the plaintiff's argument that the agreement's goal
violates public policy, the Contracts Act's 24(e) declared the agreement is unlawful.

We learned that maintaining contractual relationships between parties is very

practical, unless there are exceptional circumstances that call for their invalidation. When
analyzing the terms of the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, what matters
is not what is written on the document but rather the essence and core of their deal. A
person cannot be hired for money or other valuable consideration and then use his position
and interest to obtain a benefit from the government; this is against Malaysian public policy
because selling influence leads to corruption and erodes public trust in the government, both
of which are unfavorable to the public interest. In our opinion, whether a government
contract is involved in the business transaction, that is the subject of curious scrutiny does
not important. In accordance with Section 24 of the Contract Act 1950, it must pass the
requirement of having to remove the injunctions. We are in the opinion that the plaintiff and
defendant's introducer agreement is invalid from the beginning because it violates Section
24(e) of the Contracts Act 1950. As a result, the plaintiff's claimed right under the agreement
is denied. We unanimously dismissed this appeal with costs and upheld the High Court's
ruling in light of the abovementioned information.