Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

CONTRACT LAW – IMPLIED TERMS

I have a sale contract which does not set out terms which should have been there in the first place. For example, it is a contract to purchase electrical items. There is no term that says the electrical items should be in working condition.

What can I do?

  • You can apply to court to imply terms into the contract.

How can I imply terms into a contract?

  • There are 3 types of implied terms as follows:
  • Terms implied from the conduct of the parties;
  • Terms implied by operation of law; and
  • Terms implied by custom or usage.

What is terms implied from the conduct of the parties?

  • This is typically done when court infers from evidence that the parties to a contract must have intended to include it in the contract (though it is not clearly set out in the contract).
  • The court will apply 2 test to decide whether to imply term in the first category can be done as follows:
  • Business efficacy of the transaction; and
  • Officious bystander test.
  • Both tests have to be satisfied for the court to imply terms into the contract.

What is business efficacy of the transaction test?

  • Business efficacy means the desired result of the business in question. This is to ensure the contract works as intended and to achieve their commercial objectives.
  • In this case, if it is a contract for sale and purchase electrical items for reselling to the consumer market, it makes very little commercial sense the buyer would want to purchase items that is not in working condition. He would not be able to resell the electrical items.

What about Officious bystander test?

  • This is the test where the court will decide whether the term is something so obvious that it goes without saying.
  • This test is satisfied when the parties were making the contract and an officious bystander were to suggest whether an express term ought to be inserted into the agreement, the parties would testily say “oh, of course”.

What is terms implied operation of law?

  • Court will infer terms based on cases of specified facts or from statutory provisions.

What is terms implied by custom or usage?

  • This is where terms are implied by custom or usage of the market or trade which is reasonable.
  • Custom and usage are evidence which can be introduced for this purpose under Section 92(e) of the Evidence Act 1950.

Case in point : Sababumi (Sandakan) Sdn Bhd v Datuk Yap Pak Leong [1998] 3 MLJ 151

Recent Post

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN’S CUSTODY – CUSTODY DISPUTES IN MALAYSIA: ESSENTIAL INSIGHTS ON CHILD WELFARE AND PARENTAL ROLES

In a recent custody dispute, the court emphasized the importance of child welfare, reaffirming the maternal custody presumption for young children unless strong evidence suggests otherwise. In high-conflict situations, the court favored sole custody over joint arrangements to minimize stress on the children. This case underscores that Malaysian parents should provide credible evidence for their claims and focus on practical, child-centered solutions.

Read More »

BREACH OF CONTRACT – DAMAGES – FORESEEABILITY AND FAIRNESS IN FREIGHT LIABILITY CLAIMS

In JSD Corporation v Tri-Line Express [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 285, the court set a clear precedent on damages for property claims, ruling that only foreseeable and proportionate losses are recoverable. Applying principles akin to Hadley v Baxendale, the court allowed for repair costs if intent to remedy was evident but rejected double recovery, underscoring that damages must reflect actual loss without overcompensation. This decision serves as a guide for Malaysian courts, emphasizing fair and balanced recovery in line with foreseeable damages.

Read More »

ADMIRALTY IN REM – SHIPPING — FUEL OR FREIGHT? COURT CLEARS THE AIR ON GLOBAL FALCON BUNKER DISPUTE

In a decisive ruling on the Global Falcon bunker dispute, the court dismissed Meck Petroleum’s admiralty claim for unpaid high-sulphur fuel, finding that the fuel was supplied not for operational purposes but as cargo. With the vessel lacking necessary equipment to use high-sulphur fuel and evidence pointing to its transfer to another vessel, the court determined that Meck’s claim fell outside admiralty jurisdiction, leading to the release of the vessel and potential damages for wrongful arrest.

Read More »

COLLISION COURSE – COURT WEIGHS ANCHOR DRAGGING AND LIABILITY AT SEA

In a collision that underscores the high stakes of maritime vigilance, the court ruled that Belpareil bore the brunt of the blame for failing to control its dragging anchor and delaying critical warnings. Yet, Kiran Australia wasn’t off the hook entirely—apportioned 30% fault for its limited evasive action, the case serves as a stark reminder: in maritime law, all vessels share responsibility in averting disaster, even when one party’s errors loom large.

Read More »

GENERAL AVERAGE – PIRATE RANSOM DISPUTE: SUPREME COURT RULES CARGO OWNERS LIABLE IN THE POLAR CASE

In the landmark case Herculito Maritime Ltd v Gunvor International BV (The Polar) [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 85, the English Supreme Court upheld the shipowner’s right to recover a USD 7.7 million ransom paid to Somali pirates under general average. The Court ruled that cargo interests, despite their arguments regarding charterparty terms and insurance obligations, were liable to contribute to the ransom payment. This decision reinforces the importance of clear contractual provisions when seeking to limit or exclude liability in maritime contracts particularly matter relating to general average.

Read More »
en_USEN
× Contact Us