Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Void and Illegality (Section 24: The consideration or object of an…
Void and Illegality
-
-
-
-
Restraint of trait
S 28 Contract Act
Every agreement by which anyone is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind, is to that extend void.
Under Common law
All agreements in restraint of trade are prima facie void unless it is shown that the restraint is reasonable in the interests of the parties and of the public.
Thomas Cowan & Co Ltd v Orme : Although the covenant in restrain of trade was reasonable between the parties, it was void on the ground that it was unreasonable in the interest of the public.
Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Harper's George : Where the covanent in restraint of trade was for the period of 21 years, the court held that it was unreasonable for the interest of the public.
Under Contract Act
S 28 Contract Act
Every agreement by which anyone is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind, is to that extend void.
Wrigglesworth v Anthony Wilson : The defendant was restrained from practicing as an advocate and solicitor within Kota Bharu for the period of two years from the termination of his services with his employer. The court ruled the restraint to be void and the distance and place in respect of the restraint was irrelevant.
Wagering Contract
-
However, S. 27 Common Gaming Houses Act 1953 provides licenses to promote and organise gaming
Pet Far Eastern (M) Sdn Bhd v Tay Young Huat & Ors : The High Court held that the gambling at the casino of MV Amusement World by the first defendant using the bankers' drafts lodged with the second defendant's account was not only illegal but void , since Malaysian law does not recognise a gambling contract.
Restraint of marriage
Khem Singh v Anokh Singh : The Court held that a marriage brokerage agreement is void as having an object opposed to public policy within the meaning of S 23 of the Contract Enactment 1899.
-
-