Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

Law of Contract – Frustration – Covid-19 – Movement Control Order – Total Lockdown

My company has entered into contract with Company A. The outbreak of the coronavirus (“COVID-19”) has resulted in Movement Control Order (“MCO”) and Total Lockdown. This has affected the performance of the contract. Can I rely on the doctrine of frustration to terminate the contract?

 What is doctrine of frustration?

In short, a contract is frustrated, when after the contract is made, a change of circumstances or event occurs. The change makes it impossible or unlawful to perform the contractual obligation.

Three (3) elements to constitute frustration:

  1. The event upon which the promisor relies must have been one for which no provision has been made in the contract.
  2. The event relied upon by the promisor must be one for which he or she is not responsible.
  3. The event which is said to discharge the promise must be such that renders it radically different from that which was undertaken by contract.

Whether you can rely on frustration depends on the following situations:

  1. If you have no money to pay debt during MCO or Total Lockdown, that is not frustration.
  2. If MCO or Total Lockdown makes it difficult to perform a contract, it is not frustration. The contract does not become impossible to perform.
  3. If it is a contract to deliver goods within a specific time to an area which is under lockdown, the contract is frustrated because it becomes impossible to perform by reason of the lockdown.
  4. However, if you are aware the area will be locked down in the next 2 days and have delayed in the delivery until 2 days later, you are not entitled to rely on frustration. Self-induced event is not frustration.
  5. If your contract provides for an alternative days or ways for delivery in the event of lockdown, lockdown is not an event of frustration. There are still alternative days or ways of delivery to complete the contract.

What is the effect when a contract is frustrated?

The contract is void. Whoever receives any advantage under the void agreement has to restore or make compensation to the other person. This is provided in Section 66 of the Contracts Act 1950. For example, if you are paid under a frustrated contract, you will have to pay back the money received.

Back to Latest Legal Updates

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 »
12 January ,2025 No Comments

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 »
12 January ,2025 No Comments

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 »
12 January ,2025 No Comments

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 »
1 January ,2025 No Comments

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 »
1 January ,2025 No Comments

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 »
1 January ,2025 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us