Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

CONTRACT- FORMATION- CONSENSUS AD IDEM

Developer K Sdn Bhd has entered into a contract with the main contractor J Sdn Bhd. J Sdn Bhd later appointed M to be its subcontractor. A contract was entered between K Sdn Bhd and J Sdn Bhd on 1.4.2019. M has accepted J Sdn Bhd’s request to be their sub-contractor. Later, M set up a new company called M Sdn Bhd on 1.6.2022 to undertake the work. M and M Sdn Bhd were dealing directly with K Sdn Bhd and K’s consultant all along.

Later, it was discovered that M Sdn Bhd both departed from the original specification of the construction contract between K Sdn Bhd and J Sdn Bhd. When the deadline was approaching, K Sdn Bhd confronted both J Sdn Bhd and M Sdn Bhd about the departure from the earlier contract. M Sdn Bhd later asked for an extension of time. Rejected. K Sdn Bhd insisted on the project being completed on time. Can M Sdn Bhd sue K Sdn Bhd for unreasonably refusing an extension of time?

Q: Is there a valid contract between K Sdn Bhd and M Sdn Bhd?

A: No, the contract is formed between K Sdn Bhd and J Sdn Bhd. There will only be a contract between K Sdn Bhd and M Sdn Bhd if there is a novation to M Sdn Bhd.

Q: Can subcontractor M Sdn Bhd claim they are one of the entities as J Sdn Bhd?

A: No, they are two separate corporate entities.

Q: What is a novation?

A: Novation is the transfer of legal obligations from one party to another party. Without novation between J Sdn Bhd and K Sdn Bhd, there is no valid contract between K Sdn Bhd and M Sdn Bhd. Even though M Sdn Bhd has commenced the work and has been dealing directly with K Sdn Bhd and K’s consultant.

Q: What are the elements of novation?

A: The contracting parties in the existing contract must agree that:

  • One party no longer wants to be bound by contract terms anymore, and a new party will replace him;
  • The new party takes the burden of the contract; and
  • Both parties to the existing contract agree that the new contracting party will perform the contract.

Q: Other than legal requirements, what element is needed in order to form a valid contract between K Sdn Bhd and M Sdn Bhd?

A: There must be consensus ad idem i.e. meaning of minds between the parties. Both parties must agree to and accept the terms of the contract.

Q: Can M Sdn Bhd claim that J Snd Bhd is negotiating with K Sdn Bhd on its behalf before it was incorporated on 1.6.2022?

A: No. M Sdn Bhd could not rely on s.35(1) and (2) of the Companies Act 1965. Under s.35(1), a contract entered prior to the formation of a company can only be ratified (validating the contract) if the contract is entered by someone representing the company (an agent). J Sdn Bhd is not an agent of M Sdn Bhd. To be an agent, J Sdn Bhd has to make it clear to K Sdn Bhd that they are representing M Sdn Bhd for negotiation. M Sdn Bhd has no right to ratify the contract since the contract is between K Sdn Bhd and J Sdn Bhd.

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

STRATA TITLES ACT – DEVELOPER MUST ACCOUNT FOR COMMON PROPERTY COMPENSATION: HIGH COURT IMPOSES CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST

In JMB Kelana Square v Perantara Properties Sdn Bhd & Ors [2025] 12 MLJ 51, the High Court held that a developer who received compensation for land compulsorily acquired for the LRT 3 project could not retain sums attributable to common property. Although the compensation was paid entirely to the developer as registered proprietor, the Court found that part of the acquired land constituted common property, and the developer therefore held RM6.05 million on constructive trust for the Joint Management Body. The decision affirms that JMBs have proprietary standing to recover compensation for common property and that courts will intervene to prevent unjust enrichment in strata developments.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 No Comments

UNFAIR DISMISSAL – MEDICAL LEAVE IS NOT MISCONDUCT: HIGH COURT UPHOLDS INDUSTRIAL COURT’S PROTECTION OF SICK EMPLOYEE

In Aerodarat Services Sdn Bhd v Lawerance Raj a/l Arrulsamy & Anor [2025] 11 MLJ 26, the High Court dismissed an employer’s judicial review and affirmed that prolonged medical leave does not, by itself, amount to misconduct justifying dismissal. The Court held that the employer failed to prove the critical element of intention not to return to work or unwillingness to perform contractual duties, despite high absenteeism caused by serious illness and surgery. The ruling reinforces that employers must distinguish between genuine illness and misconduct, and cannot rely on medical absence alone to terminate employment.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 No Comments

WILL AND PROBATE – COURT OF APPEAL INVALIDATES WILL OF 97-YEAR-OLD TESTATOR: CAPACITY, SUSPICION AND UNDUE INFLUENCE PROVED

In Kong Kin Lay & Ors v Kong Kin Siong & Ors [2025] 5 MLJ 891, the Court of Appeal set aside a will executed by a 97-year-old testator, holding that there was real doubt as to testamentary capacity, compounded by serious suspicious circumstances and undue influence by certain beneficiaries. The Court emphasised that while the “golden rule” is not a rule of law, failure to obtain medical confirmation of capacity where doubt exists is a grave omission. Credibility issues with the drafting solicitor, beneficiary involvement in the will’s preparation, and suppression of evidence led the Court to declare the will invalid and order intestacy.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 No Comments

NOT AN ‘AGREEMENT TO AGREE’: ENGLISH COURT OF APPEAL SAVES LONG-TERM SUPPLY CONTRACT DESPITE OPEN PRICE CLAUSE

In KSY Juice Blends UK Ltd v Citrosuco GmbH [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 581, the UK Court of Appeal held that a long-term supply contract was not unenforceable merely because part of the price was stated as “open price to be fixed”. The Court implied a term that, in the absence of agreement, the price would be a reasonable or market price, noting that the product’s value could be objectively benchmarked against the market price of frozen concentrated orange juice. Emphasising that courts should preserve commercial bargains rather than destroy them, the decision confirms that section 8(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 operates as a saving provision, not a bar to enforceability.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 No Comments

DISCOVERY APPLICATION – HIGH COURT ORDERS JPN TO DISCLOSE FAMILY TREE — STATUTORY RIGHT OVERRIDES ADMINISTRATIVE SECRECY

In V Kalanathan a/l Veeran v Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara (JPN) & Ors [2025] 12 MLJ 529, the High Court directed JPN to disclose the family tree details of a deceased co-proprietor to assist in probate proceedings. The Court held that such information, recorded in JPN’s digital registers, constitutes a “document” under Order 24 rule 7A ROC 2012 and is not an official secret in the absence of a valid OSA certification. JPN’s reliance on internal circulars was rejected, as statutory rights under the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1957 cannot be curtailed by administrative policy. The ruling reinforces that discovery against government agencies is permissible where necessary to ensure the fair disposal of proceedings.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 No Comments

PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE – SOLICITOR – PANEL SOLICITORS LIABLE: LITIGATION BRIEF DOES NOT EXCUSE FAILURE TO PROTECT BANK’S SECURITY

In Malayan Banking Bhd v Russell Lua Kok Hiyong & Ors [2025] 12 MLJ 599, the High Court held the bank’s former panel solicitors professionally negligent for failing to safeguard the bank’s proprietary interest in a charged property during litigation. The Court ruled that a solicitor’s duty to protect a client’s interests extends beyond the confines of a ‘litigation-only’ brief, particularly where the risk of loss is obvious and foreseeable. Limitation was held to run only when actual loss crystallised, and all partners were found jointly and severally liable under the Partnership Act 1961. The decision is a clear warning that solicitors must act proactively to protect client interests, even outside their immediate scope of instruction.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us