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

REGULATIONS – GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE (GATT 1947 ) – ARTICLE I

This legal update explores key provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1947), focusing on Article I (Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment), Article II (Schedules of Concessions), Article XX (General Exceptions), and Article XXI (Security Exceptions). Article I mandates that any trade advantage granted by one contracting party to another must be extended unconditionally to all other parties. Article II ensures that imported goods from contracting parties receive treatment no less favourable than that outlined in agreed schedules, while also regulating permissible taxes and charges. Articles XX and XXI provide exceptions for measures necessary to protect public morals, health, security interests, and compliance with domestic laws. The provisions reflect the foundational principles of non-discrimination, transparency, and fair trade, while allowing for limited, well-defined exceptions. This summary is intended to provide a concise reference for businesses and legal practitioners involved in international trade law.

Read More »
3 April ,2025 No Comments

ROAD ACCIDENT – INSURANCE COMPANY STRIKES BACK: HIGH COURT OVERTURNS ROAD ACCIDENT CLAIM

When a motorcyclist claimed he was knocked down in an accident, the Sessions Court ruled in his favor, holding the other rider fully liable. But the insurance company wasn’t convinced. They appealed, arguing that there was no proof of a collision and even raised suspicions of fraud. The High Court took a closer look – and in a dramatic turn, overturned the decision, dismissed the claim, and awarded RM60,000 in costs to the insurer. This case is a stark reminder that in court, assumptions don’t win cases – evidence does.

Read More »
24 February ,2025 No Comments

CHARTERPARTY – LIEN ON SUB-FREIGHTS: CLARIFYING OWNERS’ RIGHTS AGAINST SUB-CHARTERERS

In Marchand Navigation Co v Olam Global Agri Pte Ltd and Anor [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 92, the Singapore High Court upheld the owners’ right to enforce a lien on sub-freights under Clause 18 of the NYPE 1946 charterparty, ruling that the phrase ‘any amounts due under this charter’ was broad enough to cover unpaid bunker costs. Despite an arbitration clause between the owners and charterers, the sub-charterer was obligated to honor the lien, as it was not a party to the arbitration agreement. This decision reinforces that a properly exercised lien on sub-freights can be an effective tool for owners to recover unpaid sums, even in the presence of disputes between charterers and sub-charterers.

Read More »
24 February ,2025 No Comments

SHIP SALE – LOSING THE DEAL, LOSING THE DAMAGES? THE LILA LISBON CASE AND THE LIMITS OF MARKET LOSS RECOVERY

In “The Lila Lisbon” [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 101, the court ruled that a buyer cancelling under Clause 14 of the Norwegian Salesform Memorandum of Agreement is not automatically entitled to loss of bargain damages unless the seller is in repudiatory breach. The case clarifies that failing to deliver by the cancellation date does not constitute non-delivery under the English Sale of Goods Act 1979, as the clause grants the buyer a discretionary right rather than imposing a firm obligation on the seller. This decision highlights the importance of precise contract drafting, particularly in ship sale agreements, where buyers must ensure that compensation for market loss is explicitly provided for.

Read More »
24 February ,2025 No Comments

CRIMINAL – KIDNAPPING – NO ESCAPE FROM JUSTICE: COURT UPHOLDS LIFE SENTENCE IN HIGH-PROFILE KIDNAPPING CASE

A 10-year-old child was abducted outside a tuition center, held captive, and released only after a RM1.75 million ransom was paid. The appellants were arrested following investigations, with their statements leading to the recovery of a portion of the ransom money. Despite denying involvement, they were convicted under the Kidnapping Act 1961 and sentenced to life imprisonment and ten strokes of the whip. Their appeal challenged the identification process, the validity of the charge, and the admissibility of evidence, but the court found the prosecution’s case to be strong, ruling that the appellants had acted in furtherance of a common intention and were equally liable for the crime.

Read More »
24 February ,2025 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us