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

Recent Post

STRATA MANAGEMENT – MANAGEMENT FEE SHOWDOWN – RESIDENTIAL VS. COMMERCIAL – WHO’S PAYING FOR THE EXTRAS?

In a landmark decision in Aikbee Timbers Sdn Bhd & Anor v Yii Sing Chiu & Anor and another appeal [2024] 1 MLJ 94 , the Court of Appeal clarified the rules on maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions in mixed strata developments. Developers and management corporations can impose different rates based on the distinct purposes of residential and commercial parcels. The judgment emphasizes fairness, ensuring residential owners bear the costs of exclusive facilities like pools and gyms, while commercial owners aren’t subsidizing amenities they don’t use. This ruling highlights the importance of transparency in budgeting and equitable cost-sharing in mixed-use properties.

Read More »
16 12 月 ,2024 尚無留言

ILLEGALITY OF UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS’ CLAIM – FINDER’S FEES AND ILLEGALITY: COURT DRAWS THE LINE ON UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS

In a pivotal ruling, the Court of Appeal clarified that finder’s fee agreements are not automatically void under the Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers Act 1981. The Court emphasized that illegality must be specifically pleaded and supported by evidence, and isolated transactions do not trigger the Act’s prohibition. This decision highlights the importance of precise pleadings and a clear understanding of the law’s scope.

Read More »
16 12 月 ,2024 尚無留言

COMPANIES ACT – OPPRESSION – DRAWING THE LINE: FEDERAL COURT DEFINES OPPRESSION VS. CORPORATE HARMS

In a decisive ruling, the Federal Court clarified the boundaries between personal shareholder oppression and corporate harm, overturning the Court of Appeal’s findings. The Court held that claims tied to the wrongful transfer of trademarks belonged to the company, not the individual shareholder, reaffirming that corporate harm must be addressed through a derivative action rather than an oppression claim.

Read More »
16 12 月 ,2024 尚無留言

COMPANIES LAW – WHEN DIRECTORS BETRAY: COURT CONDEMNS BREACH OF TRUST AND CORPORATE MISCONDUCT

In a stark reminder of the consequences of corporate betrayal, the court found that the directors had systematically dismantled their own company to benefit a competing entity they controlled. By breaching their fiduciary duties, conspiring to harm the business, and unjustly enriching themselves, the defendants were held accountable through significant compensatory and exemplary damages, reaffirming the critical importance of trust and integrity in corporate governance.

Read More »
16 12 月 ,2024 尚無留言

JURISDICTION – CHOOSING THE RIGHT COURT: THE SEA JUSTICE CASE HIGHLIGHTS WHERE MARITIME DISPUTES SHOULD BE HEARD

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.

Read More »
17 11 月 ,2024 尚無留言
zh_TWZH
en_USEN ms_MYMY zh_TWZH
× 联系我们