Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

CONTRACT – TERMINATION – WRONGFUL TERMINATION

What if you have invested into a project with another party to run an operation. However, because they had issued a termination notice, you were then unable to carry out your contractual obligations under the agreement and no reason was given by them. Can I sue them for wrongfully terminated contract? 

  •  Yes, you can bring a legal action against that party for wrongfully terminated contract as he or she does not provide any reason for the termination. Wrongful termination is a repudiation of the contract and hence a serious breach of the contract in and of itself.

Q. What is the right to terminate?

  •  Termination can be divided into two categories: 1) termination for cause, often known as termination for default; and 2) termination for convenience. There is no general contract concept that allows termination for convenience, thus termination for convenience can only come from the conditions of a contract that allow it. Only a serious breach of the contract by the other party can result in a termination for cause.

Q. What qualifies as a material breach to the contract?

  •  A review of contract case law may be used to determine what constitutes a material breach or default, or the contract itself may specify what constitutes a material breach or default. A breach of contract occurs when a party fails to meet one or more of the contract’s terms. However, only a material breach entitles the non-breaching party to treat the material breach as a violation of the entire contract, and a material breach entitles the non-breaching party to treat the material breach as a breach of the entire contract.

The following facts are considered by courts in determining whether a breach was material:

  1. Was there a failure of an essential contract element that led the non-breaching party to sign the contract?
  2. Did the breach affect the content of the contract, defeating the purpose for which the non-breaching party signed it?
  3. Did the breach affect a crucial subject that was central to the contract’s essence?
  4. Did the non-breaching party get significantly less or something different than what he had bargained for?

Q. What damages can I claim for a wrongfully terminated contract?

  •  Direct damages, consequential damages, and all other damages necessary to put the non-breaching party in the same position it would have been in if the contract had been fully performed by the parties are available to the non-breaching party following its termination of the contract or in response to a wrongful termination by the other party. Besides that, the courts will also provide remedies such as specific performance and rescission to put the non-breaching party back in its original position.
Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

STRATA MANAGEMENT – MANAGEMENT FEE SHOWDOWN – RESIDENTIAL VS. COMMERCIAL – WHO’S PAYING FOR THE EXTRAS?

In a landmark decision in Aikbee Timbers Sdn Bhd & Anor v Yii Sing Chiu & Anor and another appeal [2024] 1 MLJ 94 , the Court of Appeal clarified the rules on maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions in mixed strata developments. Developers and management corporations can impose different rates based on the distinct purposes of residential and commercial parcels. The judgment emphasizes fairness, ensuring residential owners bear the costs of exclusive facilities like pools and gyms, while commercial owners aren’t subsidizing amenities they don’t use. This ruling highlights the importance of transparency in budgeting and equitable cost-sharing in mixed-use properties.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

ILLEGALITY OF UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS’ CLAIM – FINDER’S FEES AND ILLEGALITY: COURT DRAWS THE LINE ON UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS

In a pivotal ruling, the Court of Appeal clarified that finder’s fee agreements are not automatically void under the Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers Act 1981. The Court emphasized that illegality must be specifically pleaded and supported by evidence, and isolated transactions do not trigger the Act’s prohibition. This decision highlights the importance of precise pleadings and a clear understanding of the law’s scope.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

COMPANIES ACT – OPPRESSION – DRAWING THE LINE: FEDERAL COURT DEFINES OPPRESSION VS. CORPORATE HARMS

In a decisive ruling, the Federal Court clarified the boundaries between personal shareholder oppression and corporate harm, overturning the Court of Appeal’s findings. The Court held that claims tied to the wrongful transfer of trademarks belonged to the company, not the individual shareholder, reaffirming that corporate harm must be addressed through a derivative action rather than an oppression claim.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

COMPANIES LAW – WHEN DIRECTORS BETRAY: COURT CONDEMNS BREACH OF TRUST AND CORPORATE MISCONDUCT

In a stark reminder of the consequences of corporate betrayal, the court found that the directors had systematically dismantled their own company to benefit a competing entity they controlled. By breaching their fiduciary duties, conspiring to harm the business, and unjustly enriching themselves, the defendants were held accountable through significant compensatory and exemplary damages, reaffirming the critical importance of trust and integrity in corporate governance.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

JURISDICTION – CHOOSING THE RIGHT COURT: THE SEA JUSTICE CASE HIGHLIGHTS WHERE MARITIME DISPUTES SHOULD BE HEARD

In The Sea Justice cases [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 383 and [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 429, the Singapore courts tackled a key question: which country should handle a maritime dispute when incidents span international waters? After examining the location of the collision, existing limitation funds in China, and witness availability, the courts concluded that China was the more appropriate forum. This ruling highlights that courts will often defer to the jurisdiction with the closest ties to the incident, ensuring efficient and fair handling of cross-border maritime disputes. This approach is also relevant in Malaysia, where similar principles apply.

Read More »
17 November ,2024 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us