Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

CONTRACT LAW – BREACH OF CONTRACT – FORFEITURE OF DEPOSIT

Q: I owned a property worth RM100 million. Mr. A offered to purchase it. I accepted his offer with an earnest deposit of RM1 million paid by him. The acceptance of the offer was premised on the condition that the Sale and Purchase Agreement (“SPA”) will be executed within 30 days, failing which the RM1 million earnest deposit would be forfeited as agreed liquidated damages. Mr. A failed to meet the 30 days deadline to sign the SPA, can I forfeit the deposit?

Yes.

A deposit is not merely a part payment of the purchase. It is also a guarantee for performance of a contract. It is generally not recoverable.

Whether deposit can be forfeited if there is a breach of contract?
Yes.

  • Generally, if there is a breach of contract, any money paid as part-payment of the contract price is recoverable by the defaulting party.
  • However, a deposit serves two purposes i.e. as guarantee of performance of the contract and also as part payment. Hence, if there is a breach of contract, the deposit is not recoverable. A deposit can be forfeited by the innocent party in the event of a breach.
  • However, such forfeiture is also subject to the test of “reasonableness” in section 75 of Contracts Act 1950 (“CA 1950”). In another words, the amount of deposit expected to be forfeited must be reasonable and not excessive.
  • There is no necessity for proof of actual loss or damage under the Federal Court decision in Cubic Electronics Sdn Bhd (in liquidation) v Mars Telecommunications Sdn Bhd – [2019] 6 MLJ 15.
  • The burden of proof is on the defaulting party to show the deposit is unreasonable.

Can I rely on Liquidated Agreed Damages (LAD) Clause in a contract and claim as my losses when there is a breach?
Yes.

STEP 1     :    You need to prove that there is a breach of contract and                             that contract has a LAD clause.

STEP 2     :    The LAD clause will be tested with the “reasonableness”                           test in section 75 of CA 1950. In determining ‘reasonable                           compensation’, the concepts of ‘legitimate interest’ and                             ‘proportionality’ are relevant.

STEP 3     :    If there is a dispute as to what constitute reasonable                                  compensation, the burden of proof falls on the defaulting                        party to show the damages clause is unreasonable.

STEP 4     :    You are entitled to the sum not exceeding the stipulated                            LAD.

What is an LAD clause?
A LAD clause is a clause that entitles a party to recover certain amount of money upon the occurrence of the event (usually a breach). Pursuant to the decision of the Federal Court Cubic Electronics Sdn Bhd (in liquidation) v Mars Telecommunications Sdn Bhd – [2019] 6 MLJ 15, there is no longer a need to prove actual damage to recover LAD.

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

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 February ,2026 尚無留言

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 February ,2026 尚無留言

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 February ,2026 尚無留言

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 February ,2026 尚無留言

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 February ,2026 尚無留言

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 February ,2026 尚無留言
zh_TWZH
en_USEN ms_MYMY zh_TWZH
× 联系我们