Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

CONTRACT LAW – FRIENDLY LOAN AND RESTITUTION/UNJUST ENRICHMENT

A advanced a sum of RM350,000.00 to B as a loan. The monies were banked into B’s wife’s bank account. The friendly loan agreement was signed between A and B. Can A recover back the monies loaned from both B and B’s wife?

  • A is entitled to recover the monies paid as a friendly loan to B if the loan was in fact proven.
  • A is also entitled to recover the monies paid into the account of B’s wife by relying on the principle of money had and received or restitution under Section 71 of the Contracts Act 1950.

What is unjust enrichment and restitution in Section 71 of the Contracts Act 1950?

  • The elements of unjust enrichment are as follows:
  • The other party must have been enriched;
  • The enrichment is at the expense of the claimant;
  • Retention of the benefit is unjust;
  • Whether there is any special defences

Section 71 Contracts Act 1950 provides:

“Where a person lawfully does anything for another person, or delivers anything to him, not intending to do so gratuitously, and such other person enjoys the benefit thereof, the latter is bound to make compensation to the former in respect of, or to restore, the thing so done or delivered.”

  • Section 71 is the statutory embodiment of the common law principle of quantum meruit, which provides for a just compensation as the measure as opposed to contractual damages. Liability in Section 71 is not based on any existing contract. It is based on the equitable principle of conscionable conduct and restitution to prevent unjust enrichment by one party at the expense of another party.

Can B’s wife claim that she has no access to her bank account. Her husband was the one who was using her account and had benefitted from it.

  • No. If one person gives authority or consent to another to use his/her bank account, he/she is still responsible for loss in that bank account (See Yap Khay Cheong Sdn Bhd v Susan George [2019] 1 MLJ 410 and Teh Poh Wah v Seremban Securities Sdn Bhd [1996] 1 MLJ 701). She cannot use that as a defence.

Can B’s wife say that she has not signed any loan agreement and is not privy to the loan agreement signed between A and her husband.

  • A does not have to rely on any contract to claim for unjust enrichment and restitution under Section 71. These are quasi contractual or an equitable remedy. In layman terms, you took the monies which belonged to another. The monies are not for payment of any goods or services. You are bound to return the monies.

(Case in Point: Munisamy a/l Rajagopal v Subashini a/p Karuppiah [2023] 8 MLJ 406)

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Sorotan Terkini

LEGAL UPDATES – THE SILENT CURVE: WHY MEDICAL PREMIUMS SUDDENLY SPIKE

Medical insurance premiums do not increase gradually. They rise exponentially. For many years, costs appear manageable, giving policyholders a false sense of stability. However, once the insured reaches their mid-60s, medical charges begin to accelerate sharply, and after age 70, they often outpace the premiums by several multiples.

This happens because medical insurance is funded from a finite pool of money – an investment “bucket” – while the medical rider functions like an engine that consumes more fuel as the insured ages. When the engine grows faster than the bucket can be replenished, depletion is inevitable. The result is sudden premium hikes, demands for top-ups, or policy lapse – not due to misconduct or missed payments, but due to the structural design of the product itself.

Read More »
8 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

THE ‘COVER UNTIL 99’ MYTH – WHY INSURANCE AGENTS GET IT WRONG

Consumers must stop relying on what insurance agents say and start reading what insurance policies actually provide. ‘Medical cover until 99’ does not mean guaranteed coverage at an affordable premium. In reality, medical insurance charges rise exponentially after age 70, often making the policy mathematically unsustainable. By the time policyholders realise this, they are told to top up tens of thousands of ringgit or lose coverage altogether.

Read More »
8 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

STRATA TITLES ACT – DEVELOPER MUST ACCOUNT FOR COMMON PROPERTY COMPENSATION: HIGH COURT IMPOSES CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST

In JMB Kelana Square v Perantara Properties Sdn Bhd & Ors [2025] 12 MLJ 51, the High Court held that a developer who received compensation for land compulsorily acquired for the LRT 3 project could not retain sums attributable to common property. Although the compensation was paid entirely to the developer as registered proprietor, the Court found that part of the acquired land constituted common property, and the developer therefore held RM6.05 million on constructive trust for the Joint Management Body. The decision affirms that JMBs have proprietary standing to recover compensation for common property and that courts will intervene to prevent unjust enrichment in strata developments.

Read More »
1 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

UNFAIR DISMISSAL – MEDICAL LEAVE IS NOT MISCONDUCT: HIGH COURT UPHOLDS INDUSTRIAL COURT’S PROTECTION OF SICK EMPLOYEE

In Aerodarat Services Sdn Bhd v Lawerance Raj a/l Arrulsamy & Anor [2025] 11 MLJ 26, the High Court dismissed an employer’s judicial review and affirmed that prolonged medical leave does not, by itself, amount to misconduct justifying dismissal. The Court held that the employer failed to prove the critical element of intention not to return to work or unwillingness to perform contractual duties, despite high absenteeism caused by serious illness and surgery. The ruling reinforces that employers must distinguish between genuine illness and misconduct, and cannot rely on medical absence alone to terminate employment.

Read More »
1 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

WILL AND PROBATE – COURT OF APPEAL INVALIDATES WILL OF 97-YEAR-OLD TESTATOR: CAPACITY, SUSPICION AND UNDUE INFLUENCE PROVED

In Kong Kin Lay & Ors v Kong Kin Siong & Ors [2025] 5 MLJ 891, the Court of Appeal set aside a will executed by a 97-year-old testator, holding that there was real doubt as to testamentary capacity, compounded by serious suspicious circumstances and undue influence by certain beneficiaries. The Court emphasised that while the “golden rule” is not a rule of law, failure to obtain medical confirmation of capacity where doubt exists is a grave omission. Credibility issues with the drafting solicitor, beneficiary involvement in the will’s preparation, and suppression of evidence led the Court to declare the will invalid and order intestacy.

Read More »
1 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

NOT AN ‘AGREEMENT TO AGREE’: ENGLISH COURT OF APPEAL SAVES LONG-TERM SUPPLY CONTRACT DESPITE OPEN PRICE CLAUSE

In KSY Juice Blends UK Ltd v Citrosuco GmbH [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 581, the UK Court of Appeal held that a long-term supply contract was not unenforceable merely because part of the price was stated as “open price to be fixed”. The Court implied a term that, in the absence of agreement, the price would be a reasonable or market price, noting that the product’s value could be objectively benchmarked against the market price of frozen concentrated orange juice. Emphasising that courts should preserve commercial bargains rather than destroy them, the decision confirms that section 8(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 operates as a saving provision, not a bar to enforceability.

Read More »
1 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan
ms_MYMY
en_USEN zh_TWZH ms_MYMY
× Hubungi Kami