Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

GP Contract > Chapter 4 - Voidable Contracts > Flashcards

Chapter 4 - Voidable Contracts Flashcards

1
Q

VOIDABLE CONTRACTS

Overview

A

1) Coercion
2) Undue influence
3) Fraud
4) Misrepresentation
5) Mistake

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

COERCION

Overview

A

1) The law
2) Duress & economic duress
3) Inequality of bargaining power
4) Effect of coercion

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

COERCION

The law

A

S.15 CA

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

COERCION

Duress & economic duress

A

1) Duress - OCBC Securities (Melaka) Sdn Bhd v Koh Kee Huat:

  • Although not provided under S.15, the concept of duress & coercion has been used interchangeably;
  • To import the concept of economic duress, test in Pao On v Lau Yiu Long must be satisfied.

2) Economic duress - Pao On v Lau Yiu Long:

  • whether alternative COA exists;
  • whether the coerced party protested;
  • whether the coerced party had independent advices;
  • whether after entering into the contract the coerced party took steps to avoid it.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

COERCION

inequality of bargaining power

A

Saad bin Marwi v Chan Hwa Hua & Anor:

  • Judge had given recognition to the doctrine of inequality of bargaining power.
  • OTF, it is held that the agreement was an unconscionable bargain & unenforceable.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

COERCION

effect of coercion

A
  • voidable - S.19(1)
  • rescission - S.65
  • restitutionary - S.66
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

UNDUE INFLUENCE

overview

A

1) UI at common law
2) UI under CA
3) test for UI
4) factors for domination of will
5) factors for presumed domination of will
6) rebutting presumption
7) effect of undue influence
8) Relief for undue influence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

UNDUE INFLUENCE

At common law

A

Allcard v Skinner:

  • Actual undue influence: court is satisfied that the gift was the result of influence expressly used by donee for the purpose;
  • Presumed undue influence: based on the existence of r/ship between the donor & donee;
  • unless it is proved that the gift was voluntary, court may set aside the gift based on presumed UI.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

UNDUE INFLUENCE

Under CA

A

S.16

  • S.16(1): position + use of the position.
  • S.16(2): position to dominate may be presumed.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

UNDUE INFLUENCE

test for UI

A

Saw Gaik Beow v Cheong Yew Weng:

  • exceptional circumstances;
  • transaction was to the manifest disadvantage of the person subjected to the dominating influence.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

UNDUE INFLUENCE

factors to determine domination of will

A

Polygram Records Sdn Bhd v The Search:

  • physical & financial constitution of the P may be helpful to determine whether he is in the position to be dominated.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

UNDUE INFLUENCE

factors to determine presumed domination of will

A

Rajabali Jumabhoy v Ameeralu R Jumbhoy:

  • Existence of a particular relation of trust & confidence;
  • Transaction was manifestly disadvantageous to the person subject to the influence;
  • burden shifts to D to prove that no undue influence has been exercised.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

UNDUE INFLUENCE

rebutting presumption

A

Inche Noriah v Shaik Allie Omar:

  • Transaction is entered with independent legal advices;
  • Transaction is entered with P knowing the consequences.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

UNDUE INFLUENCE

effect of undue influence

A

Tengku Abdullah v Mohd Latiff Mohd Shah:

  • contract becomes invalid between parties;
  • invalid against other person.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

UNDUE INFLUENCE

relief

A

S.20:

  • ctt may be set-aside.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

FRAUD

Overview

A

1) At common law
2) Under CA
3) Breach of duty to disclose
4) Equitable fraud
5) Effect of fraud
6) Relief for fraud
7) Caveat emptor principle & fraud

17
Q

FRAUD

At common law

A

Derry v Peek:

False representation is made by:

  • knowingly it is false; or
  • without belief in its truth; or
  • recklessly, carelessly whether it is true or false.
18
Q

FRAUD

under CA

A

S.17

19
Q

FRAUD

Breach of duty to disclose

A

1) Question to ask:

  • is there a duty to disclose;
  • is the non-disclosure material;
  • is the material non-disclosure fraudulent;

2) Duty to disclose:
- Partnership - Simms v Conlon & Anor: there is duty to disclose in partnership agreement.
- Insurance - Leong Kum Whay v QBE Insurance: there is duty to disclose in insurance contract.
- Agent - Lau Kee Ko & Anor v Paw Ngi Siu: property or land agent has a duty to disclose the material facts.
- Sales of motor vehicle - Lau Hee Teah v Hargill Engineering Sdn Bhd: NO duty to disclose in contract for sales of motor vehicle.
3) Whether non-disclosure is material and fraudulent:

  • to be determined within S.17; and
  • standard of proof in Sinnaiyah & Sons v Damai Setia Sdn Bhd.
20
Q

FRAUD

Equitable fraud

A

Takako Sakao v Ng Pek Yuen & Anor:

  • No need to prove actual intention to deceive;
  • suffice if there is relationship of trust & confidence, implied or expressed.
21
Q

FRAUD

Effect of fraud

A

Voidable - S.19(1)

22
Q

FRAUD

Relief for fraud

A

1) Affirm - S.19(2):
- affirm & insist on correct representation has been made;
2) Rescind - S.65:
- rescission & claim for restitution under S.66.

23
Q

FRAUD

Caveat emptor principle

A

Weber v Brown:

  • explanation to S.19 does not apply to fraud.
  • i.e. CE principle does not apply to fraud.
24
Q

MISREPRESENTATION

Overview

A

1) General requirements
2) Fraudulent misrep
3) Effect of fraudulent misrep
4) Remedies for fraudulent misrep
5) Innocent misrep
6) Remedies for innocent misrep
7) Breach of collateral warranty
8) Negligent misrep

25
Q

MISREPRESENTATION

General requirements

A

1) S.18
2) Sim Thong Realty Sdn Bhd v Teh Kim Dar:

  • Fact;
  • Address;
  • False;
  • Material.
26
Q

MISREPRESENTATION

Fraudulent misrep

A

Kheng Chwee Lian v Wong Tak Thong:

  • Both S.17 & S.18 are relied to prove fraudulent misrep;
  • i.e. intention to deceive under S.17 and ingredients of misrep under S.18 is necessary
27
Q

MISREPRESENTATION

Effect of fraudulent misrep

A

1) S.19(1) - voidable:
- Rescission S.65 + restitution S.66 + damages at tort of deceit;

or

  • Affirm + position that representation has not been made - S.19(2)
    2) Abdul Razak bin Abu Samah v Shah Alam Properties
  • Rescission: damages assessed at tort of deceit, nothing is taken off mitigation. Representee is put at position he would have been if he had no reliance on the fraudulent misrep.
  • Affirmation: insist that the contract is performed & representee is put in position where he would have been if the representation had not been made.
28
Q

MISREPRESENTATION

Innocent misrep

A

1) S.17(c):
- innocently make a mistake as to sustance of the thing which is the subject of the agreement.
2) Abdul Razak bin Abu Samah v Shah Alam Properties:
- The mind is free from deceit & inadvertence.

29
Q

MISREPRESENTATION

Remedies for innocent misrep

A

1) Remedies - Abdul Razak bin Abu Samah v Shah Alam Properties:

  • Representee is entitled to rescission;
  • In some cases, he may be entitled to indemnity;
  • But he is not entitled to damages.

2) Right to rescind - Admiral Cove Development Sdn Bhd v Balakrishnan a/l Devaraj:

  • Right to rescind: only at equity, bars to rescission applies;
  • May only rescind if the contract is still executory;
  • And restitution is possible.
30
Q

MISREP

Breach of collateral warranty

A

Dick Bentley Productions Ltd v Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd:

  • Party may plead breach of collateral warranty as an alternative to innocent misrepresentation.
  • It will entitle the P to damages.

Conditions for the cause of action:

  • Representation is made in course of dealings;
  • For the purpose of inducing the entry into the contract;
  • It actually has induced him to enter into the contract.
31
Q

MISREP

Negligent misrep

A

1) Ingredients:

  • Existence of duty of care;
  • Breach of duty of care.

2) Must specify the existence of relationship - Selangor Rubber Estates Ltd v Cradock:
- Must specify the relationship under which the duty arose.
3) Remedies for negligent misrepresentation - Sim Thong Realty v Teh Kim Dar:

  • Assessment of damages in tort of negligence.
  • P must plead & prove special relationship that gives rise to duty of care & other elements that constitute tort of negligence.
32
Q

MISTAKE

Overview

A

1) Both parties
2) Mutual mistake
3) Effect of mistake by both parties
4) relief for mistake by both parties
5) Mistake by one party
6) Effect of mistake by one party
7) Defence for mistake

33
Q

MISTAKE

Both parties

A

1) The law:
- S.21
2) Associated Japanese Bank (International) Ltd v Credit du Nord:

  • Substantially shared;
  • Relates to facts;
  • Radically different;
  • Reasonable grounds.

3) example - M Pakiam v YP Devathanjam:

  • when parties is at cross-purpose, there is no binding contract as there is no consensus ad idem;
  • i.e. no consent to same thing in same sense.
34
Q

xx

A

xx

35
Q

MISTAKE

Effect of mistake by both parties

A

S.21:

  • agreement becomes void.
36
Q

MISTAKE

Relief for mistake by both parties

A

1) The law:
- S.30 SRA
2) Thay Tho Bok v Segar Oil Palm Estates Sdn Bhd:

  • can be rectified if there is clear proof that the contract was entered through fraud and mistake;
  • burden is on the party claiming for rectification.
37
Q

MISTAKE

mistake by one party

A

1) S.23:

- as to the matter of fact.

38
Q

MISTAKE

effect of mistake by one party

A

Hasham v Zenab:

  • General rule: not voidable, i.e. valid.
  • Exception - can rescind if:

1) mistake was induced by innocent misrep;
2) mistake was induced by some other misleading conduct on his part;
3) mistake is caused by fraud, misrep, or misleading conduct by the other contracting party.

39
Q

MISTAKE

defence of mistake

A

Saunders v Anglia Building Society (Galie v Lee & Anor):

  • defence that the person sought to be held liable did not in fact sign the document;
  • i.e. illiterate, incapacity to understand the purpose of signing.
  • laziness or negligent is not an excuse.

GP Contract (10 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions