CONTRACT LAW – EXCLUSION CLAUSE –UNEQUAL BARGAINING POWER

Q: My husband and I purchased a property that was still under construction. To finance the purchase of the property, we entered into a loan agreement with ABC Bank. Under the loan agreement, ABC Bank was obliged to make progressive payments to the property developer on our behalf when the payment became due. However, ABC Bank missed one payment resulting in termination of our Sale and Purchase Agreement (“SPA”) with the developer. My husband and I wanted to claim damages that we have suffered as a result of the termination of the SPA. However ABC Bank relied on an exclusion clause in the loan agreement to absolve any liability against them. Can they do that?

No.

  • The exclusion clause absolutely restricts the bank customers from initiating any claim against the bank for loss and/or damage arising from the contract offends section 29 of Contracts Act 1950 (“CA 1950”).
  • Section 29 of CA 1050 prohibits an absolute restriction of a party’s right to enforce his rights by the usual legal proceedings.
  • Section 29 of CA 1950 provides that “Every agreement, by which any party thereto is restricted absolutely from enforcing his rights under or in respect of any contract, by the usual legal proceedings in the ordinary tribunals, or which limits the time within which he may thus enforce his rights is void to that extent.

Principle of Right to Freedom of Contract (laissez-faire)

  • Although it is often assumed that parties are generally free to determine for themselves their obligations under a contract which parties entered into freely and voluntarily, in reality not many contracts are entered as a result of arms’ length deal.
  • In the commercial realities of the particular relationship between a bank and a customer, the parties seldom have equal bargaining powers nor deal on equal terms. Most of the time, the customers are compelled to accept the terms and conditions of a standard contract prepared by institutions with stronger bargaining positions.
  • A take it or leave it approach has always been the only choice available to the bank customers.
  • In this regard, contracts with clauses to absolutely exclude liability were patently unfair and unjust to bank customers.

Our Comments

  • Exclusion clauses that do not offend section 29 of CA 1950 will continue to be upheld.
  • The court will only interfere if the parties’ rights and remedies to such rights are restricted completely by such clause.
  • As for the banks, when drafting exclusion clauses, ensure that any exclusion clause drafted must not wholly deprive the bank customers of any substantial remedy.

Case in point: CIMB Bank Bhd v Anthony Lawrence Bourke & Anor [2019] 2 MLJ 1. Federal Court (Putrajaya) – Civil Appeal no: 02-105-10 of 2017(W)

 

 

Recent Post

DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS – LEGAL RIGHTS OF CHILDREN BORN IN UNREGISTERED CUSTOMARY MARRIAGES TO INHERIT INTESTATE ESTATES

Born to parents in an unregistered Chinese customary marriage, an individual was deemed illegitimate following their father’s intestate death. The key legal issue is whether this individual can inherit under the Distribution Act 1958 (DA). The DA does not restrict inheritance to legitimate children only; it includes all bloodline descendants. Therefore, the individual qualifies as ‘issue’ and is entitled to inherit their father’s estate despite questions of legitimacy.

Read More »

FAMILY LAW – ANALYZING THE EFFICIENCY OF DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS IN CASES OF ADULTERY WITHOUT CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES

A husband filed for divorce due to living apart from his wife for two years, while the wife attributed the breakdown to adultery, involving the alleged adulteress without seeking damages. This raises questions about the necessity of addressing adultery in divorce when no compensation is sought, as Section 54 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 emphasizes irretrievable breakdown without fault.

Read More »

ROAD TRAFFIC – DUTY OF DIRECTOR GENERAL OF ROAD TRANSPORT

In a legal spotlight, X’s acquisition of a cloned vehicle unknowingly, due to lapses in the Road Transport Department’s record-keeping, raises questions about statutory duties and public trust. The case underscores the importance of stringent vehicle registry maintenance to prevent ownership of unlawfully modified vehicles.

Read More »

INDUSTRIAL LAW – NAVIGATING THE LEGALITIES OF RETRENCHMENT

The dismissal of X by Company ABC, citing economic downturns, presents a compelling case on the complexities of employment termination and retrenchment legality. X contested his redundancy, claiming his role in property management and services was unaffected by the property development market’s challenges. This case probes into the legitimacy of retrenchment under economic duress and the employer’s duty to act in good faith, as guided by Section 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967. The burden rests on Company ABC to prove the necessity and genuineness of X’s redundancy, with failure to do so possibly leading to a verdict of unjustified termination. This scenario underscores the critical importance of evidence and intention in retrenchment cases, as reflected in precedents like Akilan a/l Subramanian v. Prima Awam (M) Sdn Bhd.

Read More »

PROPERTY LAW – LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF SALE AND PURCHASE AGREEMENT BREACHES AND THE RIGHT TO OFFSET IN MALAYSIAN PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS

In the realm of Malaysian property transactions, the intricacies of Sale and Purchase Agreements (SPAs) and the enforcement of Liquidated Ascertained Damages (LAD) play pivotal roles in safeguarding the interests of both developers and purchasers. This article delves into the legal framework governing the rights and obligations of parties involved in property transactions, particularly focusing on the consequences of contractual breaches and the conditions under which a purchaser can exercise the right to offset against LAD. Through the examination of relevant case law and statutory provisions, we illuminate the legal pathways available for resolving disputes arising from the failure to adhere to the terms of SPAs, thereby offering insights into the equitable administration of justice in the context of Malaysian property law.

Read More »

WINDING-UP – OFFICIAL RECEIVER AND LIQUIDATOR (“ORL”)

In cases of compulsory winding up, the court would appoint a liquidator under s.478 of the Companies Act 2016 (“CA 2016”) to expeditiously recover and realise the assets of the wound-up company for the distribution of dividends to creditors and administer any outstanding matters involving………..

Read More »
en_USEnglish
× How can I help you?