CONTRACT- MISREPRESENTATION
What amounts to misrepresentation in a Sale and Purchase Agreement (“SPA”). If there is misrepresentation, can the purchaser terminate the contract?
Berita Terkini
What amounts to misrepresentation in a Sale and Purchase Agreement (“SPA”). If there is misrepresentation, can the purchaser terminate the contract?
When a breach of contract occurs, the parties have mutually agreed to hire an independent auditor to evaluate and assess the damages. If you are later unhappy with the auditor’s report, can you challenge it?
Latest development after Ang Ming Lee-Can developer get extension of time outside Schedule G and H agreement? Claim for LAD.
When can TNB disconnect your electricity supply?
Can another party who enters a contract with you terminate the contract without any valid reason? Is that a breach of contract?
Is Islamic Financing facility i.e. Bai Bithaman Ajil (BBA) compatible with technicality in the Malaysia National Land code?
Can purchaser of a condominium terminates an SPA if the developer fails to deliver vacant possession within 36 months?
Forfeiture of Deposits – Liquidated Agreed Damage (LAD) Claim
Performance and Impact of Contractual Obligations – Frustration – Covid-19 – Total Lockdown
Does sale of goods or a contract of renovation require to be the same as the sample shown?
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.
The UK Supreme Court clarified the limits of force majeure clauses, ruling that “reasonable endeavours” do not require a party to accept alternative performance outside the agreed contract terms. This decision emphasizes that force majeure clauses are meant to uphold, not alter, original obligations – even in unexpected circumstances. The case serves as a reminder for businesses to define alternative options explicitly within their contracts if flexibility is desired.
In a landmark ruling, the court reinforced the hospital’s non-delegable duty of care, holding that even when services are outsourced to independent contractors, the hospital remains accountable for patient welfare. This decision emphasizes that vulnerable patients, reliant on medical institutions, must be safeguarded against harm caused by third-party providers. The ruling ultimately rejected the hospital’s defense of independence for contracted consultants, underscoring a high standard of duty owed to patients.
In a complex dispute involving back-to-back contracts, the court clarified the boundaries for assessing damages, emphasizing that a chain of contracts does not automatically ensure liability passes through. Although substantial losses resulted from delays and disruption, the court highlighted the importance of the remoteness of damages, noting that each contract’s unique terms ultimately limited liability. This decision emphasise the need for parties in chain contracts to carefully define indemnity and liability provisions, as damages are assessed based on foreseeability rather than simply the structure of linked agreements.
In a recent ruling on corporate confidentiality, the court held two former employees liable for disclosing sensitive business information to a competitor, deeming it a breach of both employment contracts and fiduciary duties. This case highlights the serious consequences of unauthorized sharing of proprietary data and reinforces that such disclosures can lead to substantial legal and financial repercussions, even for the receiving parties if they knowingly benefit from confidential information.
In a recent property dispute, the court dismissed a claim for a constructive trust over property, underscoring that such a trust requires solid evidence of unfair conduct or fraud. Without sufficient proof of ownership.