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

Sorotan Terkini

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 »
31 Oktober ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

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 »
31 Oktober ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

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 »
31 Oktober ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

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 »
31 Oktober ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

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 »
31 Oktober ,2024 Tiada Ulasan
ms_MYMY
en_USEN zh_TWZH ms_MYMY
× Hubungi Kami