Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

CONTRACT LAW – BREACH OF CONTRACT – FORFEITURE OF DEPOSIT

Q: I owned a property worth RM100 million. Mr. A offered to purchase it. I accepted his offer with an earnest deposit of RM1 million paid by him. The acceptance of the offer was premised on the condition that the Sale and Purchase Agreement (“SPA”) will be executed within 30 days, failing which the RM1 million earnest deposit would be forfeited as agreed liquidated damages. Mr. A failed to meet the 30 days deadline to sign the SPA, can I forfeit the deposit?

Yes.

A deposit is not merely a part payment of the purchase. It is also a guarantee for performance of a contract. It is generally not recoverable.

Whether deposit can be forfeited if there is a breach of contract?
Yes.

  • Generally, if there is a breach of contract, any money paid as part-payment of the contract price is recoverable by the defaulting party.
  • However, a deposit serves two purposes i.e. as guarantee of performance of the contract and also as part payment. Hence, if there is a breach of contract, the deposit is not recoverable. A deposit can be forfeited by the innocent party in the event of a breach.
  • However, such forfeiture is also subject to the test of “reasonableness” in section 75 of Contracts Act 1950 (“CA 1950”). In another words, the amount of deposit expected to be forfeited must be reasonable and not excessive.
  • There is no necessity for proof of actual loss or damage under the Federal Court decision in Cubic Electronics Sdn Bhd (in liquidation) v Mars Telecommunications Sdn Bhd – [2019] 6 MLJ 15.
  • The burden of proof is on the defaulting party to show the deposit is unreasonable.

Can I rely on Liquidated Agreed Damages (LAD) Clause in a contract and claim as my losses when there is a breach?
Yes.

STEP 1     :    You need to prove that there is a breach of contract and                             that contract has a LAD clause.

STEP 2     :    The LAD clause will be tested with the “reasonableness”                           test in section 75 of CA 1950. In determining ‘reasonable                           compensation’, the concepts of ‘legitimate interest’ and                             ‘proportionality’ are relevant.

STEP 3     :    If there is a dispute as to what constitute reasonable                                  compensation, the burden of proof falls on the defaulting                        party to show the damages clause is unreasonable.

STEP 4     :    You are entitled to the sum not exceeding the stipulated                            LAD.

What is an LAD clause?
A LAD clause is a clause that entitles a party to recover certain amount of money upon the occurrence of the event (usually a breach). Pursuant to the decision of the Federal Court Cubic Electronics Sdn Bhd (in liquidation) v Mars Telecommunications Sdn Bhd – [2019] 6 MLJ 15, there is no longer a need to prove actual damage to recover LAD.

Recent Post

NAVIGATION AND SHIPPING LAW – COLLISION REGULATIONS – COLLISION AT SEA – A WAKE-UP CALL FOR ADHERING TO NAVIGATION RULES

The collision between the FMG Sydney and MSC Apollo highlights the critical importance of adhering to established navigation rules. Deviations, delayed actions, and reliance on radio communications instead of clear, early maneuvers can lead to disastrous outcomes. This case serves as a stark reminder for mariners: follow the rules, act decisively, and prioritize safety above assumptions.

Read More »

SHIPPING AND ADMIRALTY IN REM – A SINKING ASSET – COURT ORDERS SALE OF ARRESTED VESSEL TO PRESERVE CLAIM SECURITY

In a landmark admiralty decision, the High Court ordered the pendente lite sale of the arrested vessel Shi Pu 1, emphasizing the principle of preserving claim security over the defendant’s financial incapacity. The court ruled that the vessel, deemed a “wasting asset,” could not remain under arrest indefinitely without proper maintenance or security. This case reinforces the necessity for shipowners to manage arrested assets proactively to prevent significant financial and legal repercussions.

Read More »

EMPLOYMENT LAW – IS DIRECTOR A DIRECTOR OR EMPLOYEE? UNPACKING DUAL ROLES IN EMPLOYMENT LAW

The Court of Appeal clarified the dual roles of directors as both shareholders and employees, affirming that executive directors can qualify as “workmen” under the Industrial Relations Act 1967. The decision emphasizes that removal as a director does not equate to lawful dismissal as an employee unless due process is followed. This case highlights the importance of distinguishing shareholder rights from employment protections, ensuring companies navigate such disputes with clarity and fairness.

Read More »

COMMERCIAL CONTRACT – FORCE MAJEURE OR JUST EXCUSES? LESSONS FROM LITASCO V DER MOND OIL [2024] 2 LLOYD’S REP 593

The recent decision in Litasco SA v Der Mond Oil and Gas Africa SA [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 593 highlights the strict thresholds required to invoke defences such as force majeure and trade sanctions in commercial disputes. The English Commercial Court dismissed claims of misrepresentation and found that banking restrictions and sanctions did not excuse payment obligations under the crude oil contract. This judgment reinforces the importance of precise contractual drafting and credible evidence in defending against payment claims, serving as a cautionary tale for businesses navigating international trade and legal obligations.

Read More »

SHIPPING – LETTER OF CREDIT – LESSONS FROM UNICREDIT’S FRAUD CLAIM AGAINST GLENCORE

The Singapore Court of Appeal’s decision in Unicredit Bank AG v Glencore Singapore Pte Ltd [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 624 reaffirms the principle of autonomy in letters of credit and highlights the high evidentiary threshold for invoking the fraud exception. Unicredit’s claim of deceit was dismissed as the court found no evidence of false representations by Glencore, emphasizing that banks deal with documents, not underlying transactions. This case serves as a critical reminder for international trade practitioners to prioritize clear documentation and robust due diligence to mitigate risks in financial transactions.

Read More »

LAND LAW – PROPERTY SOLD TWICE: OWNERSHIP NOT TRANSFERRED IN FIRST SALE

This legal update examines the Court of Appeal’s decision in Malayan Banking Bhd v Mohd Affandi bin Ahmad & Anor [2024] 1 MLJ 1, which reaffirmed the binding nature of valid Sale and Purchase Agreements (SPAs) and the establishment of constructive trust. The court dismissed claims of deferred indefeasibility by subsequent purchasers and a chargee bank, emphasizing the critical importance of due diligence in property transactions. The decision serves as a cautionary tale for financial institutions and vendors, reinforcing the need for meticulous compliance with legal and equitable obligations.

Read More »
en_USEN
× Contact Us