Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

CONTRACT- FORMATION- CONSENSUS AD IDEM

Developer K Sdn Bhd has entered into a contract with the main contractor J Sdn Bhd. J Sdn Bhd later appointed M to be its subcontractor. A contract was entered between K Sdn Bhd and J Sdn Bhd on 1.4.2019. M has accepted J Sdn Bhd’s request to be their sub-contractor. Later, M set up a new company called M Sdn Bhd on 1.6.2022 to undertake the work. M and M Sdn Bhd were dealing directly with K Sdn Bhd and K’s consultant all along.

Later, it was discovered that M Sdn Bhd both departed from the original specification of the construction contract between K Sdn Bhd and J Sdn Bhd. When the deadline was approaching, K Sdn Bhd confronted both J Sdn Bhd and M Sdn Bhd about the departure from the earlier contract. M Sdn Bhd later asked for an extension of time. Rejected. K Sdn Bhd insisted on the project being completed on time. Can M Sdn Bhd sue K Sdn Bhd for unreasonably refusing an extension of time?

Q: Is there a valid contract between K Sdn Bhd and M Sdn Bhd?

A: No, the contract is formed between K Sdn Bhd and J Sdn Bhd. There will only be a contract between K Sdn Bhd and M Sdn Bhd if there is a novation to M Sdn Bhd.

Q: Can subcontractor M Sdn Bhd claim they are one of the entities as J Sdn Bhd?

A: No, they are two separate corporate entities.

Q: What is a novation?

A: Novation is the transfer of legal obligations from one party to another party. Without novation between J Sdn Bhd and K Sdn Bhd, there is no valid contract between K Sdn Bhd and M Sdn Bhd. Even though M Sdn Bhd has commenced the work and has been dealing directly with K Sdn Bhd and K’s consultant.

Q: What are the elements of novation?

A: The contracting parties in the existing contract must agree that:

  • One party no longer wants to be bound by contract terms anymore, and a new party will replace him;
  • The new party takes the burden of the contract; and
  • Both parties to the existing contract agree that the new contracting party will perform the contract.

Q: Other than legal requirements, what element is needed in order to form a valid contract between K Sdn Bhd and M Sdn Bhd?

A: There must be consensus ad idem i.e. meaning of minds between the parties. Both parties must agree to and accept the terms of the contract.

Q: Can M Sdn Bhd claim that J Snd Bhd is negotiating with K Sdn Bhd on its behalf before it was incorporated on 1.6.2022?

A: No. M Sdn Bhd could not rely on s.35(1) and (2) of the Companies Act 1965. Under s.35(1), a contract entered prior to the formation of a company can only be ratified (validating the contract) if the contract is entered by someone representing the company (an agent). J Sdn Bhd is not an agent of M Sdn Bhd. To be an agent, J Sdn Bhd has to make it clear to K Sdn Bhd that they are representing M Sdn Bhd for negotiation. M Sdn Bhd has no right to ratify the contract since the contract is between K Sdn Bhd and J Sdn Bhd.

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

CIVIL PROCEDURE – STRIKE OUT UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 19(1)(A),(B) RULES OF COURT 2012 – EXTENSION OF TIME APPLICATION

In Badan Pengurusan Subang Parkhomes v Zen Estates Sdn Bhd [2025] MLJU 3591, the High Court reaffirmed that non-compliance with Order 37 Rule 1(5) of the Rules of Court 2012 does not automatically invalidate assessment of damages proceedings. The Court held that procedural rules must be read with the overriding objective of ensuring justice, and that the six-month time limit to file a Notice of Appointment is directory, not mandatory. Finding no prejudice to the defendant and noting active case management by the plaintiff, the Court dismissed the developer’s strike-out bid and allowed an extension of time for assessment to proceed. The decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to substantive fairness over procedural rigidity in post-judgment proceedings.

Read More »
16 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言

TORT – PURE ECONOMIC LOSS BAR REAFFIRMED: MMC LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE BUT PROTECTED FROM LOST PROFIT CLAIMS

In Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn Bhd v Majlis Perubatan Malaysia & Anor [2025] MLJU 3144, the High Court awarded over RM2 million in damages against the Malaysian Medical Council (MMC) for negligence, breach of statutory duty, and misfeasance during its accreditation of Lincoln University College’s medical programmes. While the court allowed direct financial losses such as survey costs, it barred claims exceeding RM550 million for lost profits, reaffirming the Federal Court’s rulings in Steven Phoa and UDA Holdings that pure economic loss is not recoverable from public or statutory bodies. The second defendant was further ordered to pay RM100,000 in exemplary damages for acting with targeted malice, marking a rare personal liability finding against a regulatory officer.

Read More »
16 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言

ERINFORD INJUNCTION – COURT OF APPEAL CLARIFIES: EX-PARTE ERINFORD INJUNCTIONS ARE THE EXCEPTION, NOT THE RULE

In Edisijuta Parking Sdn Bhd v TH Universal Builders Sdn Bhd & Anor [2025] 5 MLJ 524, the Court of Appeal clarified that ex parte Erinford injunctions at the appellate stage should only be granted in truly exceptional circumstances where giving notice would defeat the purpose of the order. Wong Kian Kheong JCA held that, under rule 50 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, such applications should generally be heard inter partes to ensure fairness and prevent abuse. Exercising powers under section 44(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, the Court granted a conditional interim Erinford injunction pending appeal, fortified by a RM200,000 deposit and an undertaking to pay damages. The ruling provides clear guidance on balancing urgency, procedural fairness, and judicial efficiency in appellate injunctions.

Read More »
16 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言

TOTAL FAILURE CONSIDERATION – FEDERAL COURT OVERRULES BERJAYA TIMES SQUARE: TOTAL FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION REDEFINED

In Lim Swee Choo & Anor v Ong Koh Hou @ Won Kok Fong [2025] 6 MLJ 327, the Federal Court unanimously overruled Berjaya Times Square Sdn Bhd v M Concept Sdn Bhd and clarified that the doctrine of total failure of consideration applies only to restitutionary relief, not to contractual termination. The Court held that the correct test is whether the promisor has performed any part of the contractual duties in respect of which payment is due, adopting Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Co [1998] 1 WLR 574. Finding that the appellants had partly performed their obligations and the respondent had derived benefits, the Court rejected the respondent’s claim for restitution and restored the appellants’ contractual claim. The landmark decision restores clarity between contract and restitution, reinforcing commercial certainty in Malaysian law.

Read More »
16 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言

CONTRACT (BILL OF LADING) – NO DUTY TO DETECT FRAUD: COURT CLEARS MAERSK OF LIABILITY FOR FALSE CONTAINER WEIGHTS

In Stournaras Stylianos Monoprosopi EPE v Maersk A/S [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 323, the English Commercial Court held that carriers are not liable for fraudulent misdeclarations by shippers where bills of lading are issued for sealed containers. The Court ruled that Maersk had no duty to verify or cross-check declared weights against Verified Gross Mass (VGM) data under the SOLAS Convention, as its obligation under the Hague Rules extended only to the apparent external condition of cargo. However, the judgment signals that a limited duty of care could arise in future where a carrier is put on notice of fraud. For now, carriers may rely on shipper declarations, but consignees must exercise commercial vigilance and due diligence when relying on bills for payment.

Read More »
16 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES – STATUTORY BODY DUTY – DAMAGES – OBTAINING APPROVAL

In Big Man Management Sdn Bhd v Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2025] 5 MLJ 290, the Federal Court reinstated nearly RM3.56 million in special damages and awarded RM100,000 in exemplary damages against TNB for wrongfully disconnecting electricity to an ice factory. The Court ruled that “strict proof” of special damages does not mean a higher burden beyond the civil standard of proof and affirmed that TNB, as a statutory monopoly, breached its statutory duty by using disconnection as leverage to collect payment. The judgment underscores that public utilities cannot misuse statutory powers, and consumers wrongfully deprived of essential services may be entitled to punitive remedies in exceptional cases.

Read More »
16 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言
zh_TWZH
en_USEN ms_MYMY zh_TWZH
× 联系我们