Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

CONTENT OF CONTRACTS, Section 14 of SOGA 1957 - Coggle Diagram

- - - - overrides inconsistent written term
        
        Tan Chong v Alan Mcknight
    - - Industrial and Agricultural v Golden Sands
    - - Tan Swee Hoe v Ali Hussain
    - - a device which has been used to overcome the parol evidence rule to admit pre-contractual statements which has not been incorporated into the written agreement
  - - - to protect the written contracts' original content which will contribute to maintaining certainty and stability
    - - rule that prohibits a person from adducing oral evidence where the terms of the contract have been pun into writing
    - - Section 91 : when the terms of a contract have been reduced by or by consent of the parties to the form of a document, no evidence shall be given in proof of that the terms of the contract except the document itself
      - Section 92 : when the terms of any such contract have been proved according to section 91, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted as between or their representatives in interest for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to or substracting from its terms.
        
        exception
        
        (a) : the existence of any separate oral agreement, as to any matter on which a document is silent and which is not inconsistent with its terms, may be proved, and in considering whether or not this proviso applies, the court shall have regard to the degree of formality of the document.
        
        exception
        
        (b) : existence of any separate oral agreement consituting a condition precedent to the attaching of any obligation under any such contract, grant or disposition of any property, may be proved.
- - - - void = agreement not enforceable by law
  - - - Statue prohibits the act which parties contracted do
        
        case
        
        Yep Mooi v Chu Chin Chua & Ors
        
        Haji Hamid Ariffin v Ahamad Mahmud
    - - Test: contract to be illegal contravened a statutory provision
        
        sufficient nexus between statutory requirement and the contract
        
        considered issues
        
        whether statutes prohibits making of contracts
        
        case
        
        Hopewell Construction Co Ltd v Eastern & Oriental Hotel Sdn Bhd
        
        Maria Tunku Sabri v Datuk Wan Johani Wan Hussin
        
        whether statues provide a party need to sastify certain requirements
      - no direct contravention
        
        consideration or object have effect defect the law
        
        Hee Cheng v Krishnan
    - - illustration (g)
    - - Syed Ahamed Mohammed Alhabshee v Puteh Satu
    - - immoral
        
        illustration (j)
        
        illustration (k)
      - public policy
        
        Chitty on Contracts, 24th Edition
        
        5 grounds
        
        Injurious to good government
        
        Datuk Ong Kee Hui v Sinyium Anak Mufti
        
        interfere with proper working of the machinery of justice
        
        Oo Kiah Inn Charles v Kukuh Maju Industires Sdn Bhd
        
        injurious to family life
        
        Nafsiah v Abdul Majid
        
        economically against the public policy
        
        Lim Kar Bee v Duofortis Properties Sdn Bhd
        
        Harun Taib v Khor Peng Seng
        
        illegal by common law or legislation
        
        object contravenes any statutes
        
        Sections 24(a) and (b)
        
        Theresa Chong v Kin Khoon & Co
        
        Malaysian courts are bound by the English tradition classification of public policy.
        
        Agreements that do not fit under the established headings are not objects covered by Section 24(e).
        
        state of affairs regarded by law as harmful to society.
  - - - case
        
        Arumugam v Somasundram
        
        Aroomogum Chitty v Lim Ah Hang
  - - - unlawful
        
        Void ab initio and unenforceable by law
        
        Party has no right to enforce
        
        cannot apply for specific performance
  - - - requirements
        
        must be party to illegality
        
        Party seeking relief must be unaware of illegality
        
        agremeent void
      - Ng Sie San v Menaka
- - - - Notice/Unsigned Document
        
        i.Before or at the time of the contract.
        
        Case: Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking
        
        ii.Notice must be sufficient.
        
        Case: Thomspon v London
        
        iii.Type of document.
        
        Case: Interfoto Picture Library v Stiletto Visual Programmes
      - By a course of previous dealing
        
        Case: J Spurling v Bradshaw
      - Signed Document
        
        Case: L'Estrange v F Graucob
    - - Exemption Clause and Negligence
      - Exemption Clause & Statutory Protection
        
        S.34
      - Contra Proferentem Rule
        
        Case: Malaysia National Insurance v Abdul Aziz Daud
      - S.29 of Contracts Act 1950
- - - - implied terms to arise from previous decided cases on certain specific facts.
    - - Section 15 of SOGA 1957
        
        Re Moore and Landauer
      - Section 16 of SOGA 1957
        
        s16(1)(a) - implied condition that goods are reasonable fit for a particular purpose.
        
        Requirements
        
        The buyer must make known, either expressly or impliedly to the seller at or before the time when the contract is made, the particular purpose for which the goods are required
        
        The buyer is relying on the seller’s skill/judgment
        
        The goods are of a description which it is in the course of the seller’s business to supply
        
        If the goods are specific, they must not be bought under their patent/trade name
        
        s16(1)(b) - implied condition that goods must have merchantable quality.
      - Section 17 of SOGA 1957
        
        s17(1) – a contract of sale is a contract for sale by sample where there is a term in the contract express or implied to that effect
        
        Parker v Parker
  - - - The Moorcock
    - - Shirlaw v Southern Foundries
    - - Sababumi v Datuk Yap Pak Leong
  - - - Not inconsistent with express term
        
        Cheng Keng Hong v Governement of the Federation of Malaya
      - Must be reasonable
        
        Preston Corporation Sdn Bhd v Edward Leong & Ors
      - Knowledge of custom or trade usage
        
        Cunliffe-Owen v Teather & Greenwood
- - - - While performance of a contract may in the circumstance result in benefit or burden as a matter of a fact upon a third party to the contract, as a matter of law, a third party cannot enforce the contract nor be subject to liabilities imposed by the contract
        Case : Tweddle v Atkinson
    - - No stranger to the consideration can take advantage of the contract
  - - - Same as common law
        
        Kepong Prospecting Ltd v Schmidt
    - - Parties to contract
        
        Have rights to sue
      - Not parties to contract
        
        Does not have rights to sue
      - Cannot be enforced by or against third party