This article discusses the legal capacity of individuals to form contracts under the Contracts Act 1950 in Malaysia. It covers the restrictions on minors, sound persons, and corporations, as well as the exceptions for contracts for necessaries, scholarship contracts, insurance contracts, and marriage contracts.
Contribute Materials
Your contribution can guide someone’s learning journey. Share your
documents today.
Running Head: Contracts Act 1950 Contracts Act 1950 Capacity to Contract System04128 [Pick the date]
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
Contracts Act 1950 Table of Contents Introduction................................................................................................................................2 Minors........................................................................................................................................2 1.Contracts for Necessaries................................................................................................4 2.Scholarship Contracts......................................................................................................5 3.Insurance Contract..........................................................................................................5 4.Marriage Contract...........................................................................................................6 Sound Person..............................................................................................................................6 Corporations...............................................................................................................................7 Conclusion..................................................................................................................................7 Bibliography...............................................................................................................................8 Introduction 1|P a g e
Contracts Act 1950 A contract is formed when agreement in enforced with the help of law. It is mutual understanding between the parties and it is legally binding on them. For a valid agreement, there should be offer and its legal acceptance.In Malaysia, Contracts Act 1950 governs contract and issues arising out of it(Anon., 2006). When the provisionsor section mentioned in the Contracts Act are absent or when the issue is mentioned but provisions are not present related to the issue then English Law will be applied through Civil Law Act. If there is contravention between any provisions in English Law and Contract Act then Contract Act will prevail over it. To form a valid and legal contract, there should be presence of some legal elements. There should be presence of at least two parties to perform the contract. Therefore, there should be an offer through one individual and it should be accepted by the other individual according to the mode of acceptance prescribed by offeror. These elements are valid offer, acceptance, consideration, capacity and others. In this article, the legal capacity of people to form contract will be discussed as per laws of Malaysia. Each individual is competent to form a contract. Sometimes, law puts some restrictions on the legal capacity of some specific individuals and persons for forming and entering into contract. Some people are not competent enough to form a contract and hence they are legally restricted to form legally enforced contract. To determine legality of a contract, the issue of capacity is prime concern. To give rise to a legal contract, it is necessary that the individuals who are going into the contract are mentally eligible and mature in age. It can be inferred that a person who is minor or an individual of unsound mind is not eligible to form contract. It is given in Section 11 of Contracts Act 1950 that “every person is competent to enter into contract who is major in the eyes of law to which he/she is a subject, who is of sound mind and is not disqualified for making contract by any law to which he/she a subject”(Anon., 1950). Minors An individual who is below eighteen years i.e., adulthood age, is an infant. Age of Majority Act 1971 provides the age of majority is eighteen years(Anon., 1971). Ageof majority can be changed if it is mentioned specifically any law. A contract where one of the parties is a minor isvoid ab initio.This concept was adopted in Malaysia from Indian Case ofMohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose(Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose, 1903)in which court said that the contract in which one of the party is minor is void and it is not his responsibility to pay anything for breach of contract. In this case, a minor person entered into the contract with 2|P a g e
Contracts Act 1950 an adult person and mortgaged property in consideration of money. When the minor was not able to pay the money back, then he went to the court against him and the court said that minor cannot be ask to refund the money. Minors will not come under the purview of Section 65 of Indian Contract Act(Anon., n.d.). Section 65 is similar to Section 66 of Malaysian Contract Act(Anon., n.d.). It is applicable on the contract among the competent parties and where minor is involved, the contract isvoid ab initio. This judgment was taken into Malaysian case, Tan Hee Juan v. The Boon Keat(Tan Hee Juan v. The Boon Keat, 1934)in which the infant was the plaintiff. The infant executed shifting of property to defendant, there was presence of witnesses, and it was registered. After sometime, the minor appealed in court to remove the transfer. The tribunal passed the judgment in favour of infant, the transfers were declared illegal, and the property was given back to infant. In this manner, if the infant has not crossed the age of 18 years then the interested man or woman is not capable and ready to enter into the contract and the contract eventually will not be enforceable. It is a progressive rule subject is required to shield the more energetic who are believed to be inclined and consequently need additional safeguard and for inspirations driving picking who ought to be verified the season of prevailing part is held onto as the isolating line. Regardless, it is no longer persistently that such an individual can keep up a vital separation from hazard on an understanding that he has gone into. An exceptional case is an understanding for necessaries, which will tie even on a man or woman who has now not accomplished the time of lion's offer. The perspective at the back of this is by virtue of necessaries – be they product or commitments – there is no downside or impediment to the minor. Clearly, it is never again the entire that gravitates toward this uncommon case(Harun, et al., 2019). However,morethan just advantageis required. InCowern v Nield(Cowern v Nield, 1912)it was held that“It is no doubtrightto say, in ageneralexperiencethat contracts of asure personaareenforceabletowardsaninfantiftheyareforhisbenefit,butaninfantisnow notalwaysin chargeon a contractpurelybecauseit is for his benefit. Theonlycontracts, which, if for the infant’s benefit, are enforceable towards him, are contractsreferring tothe infant’s person, such as contracts for necessaries, food, clothing, and lodging, contracts of marriage,andcontractsofapprenticeshipandservice.Inmyopinion,abuyingand sellingcontract doesnotcomewithinthat category”.Theconcernof what are the needs is athemethatdesiresto bementionedthroughitself. In Section 69 of Contracts Act 1950, thiscomponentof theconcernis held as “If a person, incapable ofenteringinto a contract 3|P a g e
Paraphrase This Document
Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
Contracts Act 1950 oreveryonewhom he is legallyboundto support, issuppliedby every otherpersonwith necessariesidealto hisconditionin life, thecharacterwho has furnished suchsuppliesis entitled to be reimbursed from the property of such incapable person”(Anon., 2019).On the off chance that the measures are selected to authorize the assignments of the individual, who has never again achieved the period of greater part, were taken when such an individual is in any case a minor, the situation would be less complex. In any case, there are examples where the exhibition of the agreement however went into with a minor proceeds past such an individual's minority. At that point, there is driving forward with obligation and this requires a revocation or correction relying upon the conditions(Singh, 2006). There are exceptions to minors- 1.Contracts for Necessaries Regardless whether the infant needs such things or the things according or suitable to the situation in presence of these new born children and to their credible requirements at the time ofagreement,forexample,nourishment,cover,dress,logicalcontributionsandeven instruction(Smith & Keenan, 2006).Nevertheless, lavish articles are barred. Section69defines“requirementsasgoodsandservicesmoderatelynecessarytoa minor’sactualrequirement.Ifanotherindividual,materialsaperson,incapable ofenteringintoacontract,oreveryonewhomheislegallysuretosupport,with necessariessuitedto hisconditionin life, thecharacterwho has furnished suchmaterialsis entitle to be reimbursed from the property of such incapable person”. Thesupplier can ask for money for providing necessaries if minor has property. In the case ofNash v Inman(Nash v Inman, 1908), a tailorwasthe defendant sued a minor who is plaintiff with whom he hadfurnishedclothesthatincorporateattractivewaistcoasts. Thecourtroomdeterminedthatno matter what, theclotheswerenormalin accordanceto life of the infant. Nevertheless, the minor was already having sufficient clothes so it was not necessity. Therefore, the defendantclaimwas onceno longersuccessful. In case ofDoyle vs White City Stadium Ltd(Doyle v White City Stadium Ltd, 1934), an infant gave his consent toendureaneducationtobecomeaboxer.Therefore,heusedtobeforcedwithaid ofthetermsof thissettlementwith stadium. 4|P a g e
Contracts Act 1950 2.Scholarship Contracts One model in the past used to be grants, when beneficiaries took the likelihood to state that they had been minors at the time they consented to the grant arrangement and that in this way the agreement needed legitimacy; because of their absence of competency. The opposite contention that must be advanced was that the grant added up to what could be known as necessaries. Where the beneficiary had achieved the time of dominant part and persisted to get the grant, there would be the what's more contention that the understanding had been sanctioned and received by the beneficiary. This prompted some vulnerability regarding how beneficiaries of grants explicitly from the specialists, statutory authorities and others should followed, despite that few of them had been currently not of time of dominant part by utilizingtheorderofContracts(Amendment)Act,1976.Thechangeconsistsof subsidiescontrolled and handledby means ofthe Federal Government or a State Government whichprovidesthat“noscholarshipsettlementshallbeinvalidatedonthegroundthat thepupilgetting intosuchsettlementisno longerof the age of majority”(Wu & Vohrah, 2000).A scholarshipsettlement which is enforcedbyababyislegitimatesuch as credit, subsidies for thestudyingby usinggovernmentorotherinstructionalinstitution. Understanding between the expert with the undergrads about grants, prizes, help or advances. What's more, Section 4(a) of Contracts Act give a clarification to that the settlement does never again invalid for reason no longer old enough. Segment 5(a) Contract Act clarify that on the off chance that there is a chance of installment, at that point the understudy or underwriter will be capable. For the situation,Government of Malaysia v Gucharan Singh and Ors(Government of Malaysia v. Gurcharan Singh & Ors., 1971),Gurbachan got access from experts to go for trainings, as an educator and for this purpose, he is to present with administrators for a long time after graduated. Gurbachan left sooner than full term. When he was sued, he asserts that the agreement is not legal. He was once missing of capability for the length of the time. The court has confirmed that preparation is a need to an infant. In this manner, Gurbachan is in rupture of agreement(C., 2018). 3.Insurance Contract Under the purview of Insurance Act 1963, a child who has not crossed age of ten years can get into the insurance contracts but if the child can enter into the contract after attaining the consent from the guardian when he or she is below sixteen years of age because guardian knows about the nest interest of minor(Anon., 1996). 5|P a g e
Contracts Act 1950 4.Marriage Contract In Malaysia, a minor can go into a marriage contract and is bound with the agreement. Guarantee of marriage went into by method for infant or their folks for their sake are held legitimate. Section 4(a) of Age of Majority Act 1971, presently shows that notwithstanding anything in the Majority Act will influence the capability of a person to do something in contingent issues, explicitly marriage, separation and reception(Anon., 2006). InRajeswary & Anor v Balakrishnan & Ors(Rajeswary & Anor v Balakrishnan & Ors., 1958),it was held that an agreement to wed went into through infants are recognizable from various sources of agreement and don't come inside the guideline set down in Mohori Bibee's case. Sound Person In S12 of the Act, asimilarlyattempttoprovide an explanation forsoundness ofmindhas been made which is as follows: (a) “An individual is of sound mind and eligible for understanding the contract and can form rational judgment for entering into contract” (b) “when a person is of unsound mind but sometimes he is of sound mind than he can make contract when he is of sound mind” In Malaysia, acharacterwho is mentallyailingis unable tobelieverationally and has troubles in doing judgement. Under section 12,man or womanwho suffers frommentalupset is unqualified to come in a contractbased totallyon. Theimportanceof mentallysickmay additionallytake tohumansavertingtheir contractual duties, hence,man or womanwho is mentallysickwillfinallybecertainunlessthereisgroundstodemothat suchindividualdoesnow notunderstandwhat have been going anddifferentindividualhas already cognizant of hisintellectualstatus.Besides, anindividualneed tobe of sound head bindingtoacontract,ascitedinSection11ofContractsAct,1950. If a drunkenness,man, woman,or whom is on drugs, it is judged likewise as the incapacity of mentally sick. When an individualhasgrounds to show that he was not aware about the contractandwasnotcapabletograspthetermsofthecontract(Anon.,n.d.). 6|P a g e
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
Contracts Act 1950 Corporations Corporationorwithoutrecognisedascompany,referstoisan unrealcreativeundertakingofprisonman or womanandemployerhave tobe differentiated fromstockholders.TherearetwosortsoforganisationinMalaysia,whichare registeredcompaniesandlistedcompanies.Registeredorganizationsareorganizationthat registeredbeneaththe Malaysia Act. Then, listedagenciesarecorporationthattroublesbonds and securities to the populace. Based on Section 124 of the Corporations Act 2001, anenterprisehas theabilityto come in contract evenalthoughthere are restrictions to come in a contract. Besides,underneathsubdivision 19(5),agenciesshallwithoutactionor be sued when there isissueoccurs. Conclusion The innovation does not alter the requirements of these components to frame a substantial contract, nevertheless one must be cautious when managing minor's agreement since it can make an issue and difficulties to an individual who manages them. Each character who is in a situation to the contract is allowed to the contract on such expressions as he might suspect fit. So protracted as the thought and purpose of the settlement is legal and never again explicitly pronounced to be void and he goes into the agreement unreservedly and willfully his agreement will be authorized by utilizing the courts of equity.For an agreement to be legitimate, the fundamental elements of an agreement must be available. The basic necessities to be available in an enforceable contract are offer, acknowledgment, thought and limit. It accepted that everybody is fit for going into an agreement; however a minor needs lawful assurance in view of their age unable to value their own behaviour. The guideline then again situated impediments upon the capacity of specific individuals to tie themselves through a guarantee or to authorize a guarantee made to them. Regardless of whether an agreement is satisfying every one of the criteria of a legitimate contract yet is deficient with regards to the limit of the gatherings then the agreement won't be enforceable. Bibliography 7|P a g e
Contracts Act 1950 Anon., 1950.Section 11 of Malaysian Contracts Act.[Online] Available at:https://www.lawnotes.in/Section_11_of_Malaysian_Contracts_Act,_1950 [Accessed 10 June 2019]. Anon., 1971.Age of Majority Act.[Online] Available at:http://www.commonlii.org/my/legis/consol_act/aoma1971153/ [Accessed 10 June 2019]. Anon., 1996.Laws of Malaysia.[Online] Available at:http://www.bnm.gov.my/documents/act/en_ins_act.pdf [Accessed 10 June 2019]. Anon., 2006.Age of Majority Act 1971.[Online] Available at:http://www.agc.gov.my/agcportal/uploads/files/Publications/LOM/EN/Act %2021.pdf [Accessed 10 June 2019]. Anon., 2006.Contracts Act 1950.[Online] Available at:http://www.agc.gov.my/agcportal/uploads/files/Publications/LOM/EN/Act %20136.pdf [Accessed 10 June 2019]. Anon., 2019.Section 69 of Malaysian Contracts Act, 1950.[Online] Available at:https://www.lawnotes.in/Section_69_of_Malaysian_Contracts_Act,_1950 [Accessed 10 June 2019]. Anon., n.d.ANSWERING SCHEME FOR BUSINESS AND COMPANY LAW MIAQE EXAMINATION QUESTION.[Online] Available at:https://www.mia.org.my/v2/downloads/education/qualifying/past/2014/03/ Business_and_Company_Law_Answer.pdf [Accessed 10 June 2019]. Anon., n.d.Section 65 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872.[Online] Available at:https://indiankanoon.org/doc/340124/ [Accessed 10 June 2019]. Anon., n.d.Section 66 of Malaysian Contracts Act, 1950.[Online] Available at:https://www.lawnotes.in/Section_66_of_Malaysian_Contracts_Act,_1950 8|P a g e
Contracts Act 1950 [Accessed 10 June 2019]. C., D., 2018.In the 1960's, this Malaysian scholarship student found a loophole to escape his bond...[Online] Available at:https://asklegal.my/p/scholarship-contract-minor-malaysia [Accessed 10 June 2019]. Cowern v Nield(1912) K.B.. Doyle v White City Stadium Ltd(1934) KB. Government of Malaysia v. Gurcharan Singh & Ors.(1971) MLJ. Harun, N., Bidin, A., Salleh, K. & Hamid, N. ‘., 2019. Minor’s Capacity to Contract in Malaysia: Issues and Challenges.Internatinal Journal of Academic Research in Business & Social Sciences,8(12), pp. 1549-1556. Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose(1903) I.L.R. Nash v Inman(1908) KB. Rajeswary & Anor v Balakrishnan & Ors.(1958) MC. Singh, B., 2006.Minors in contracts.[Online] Available at:https://www.thestar.com.my/data/archives/2013/07/07/16/11/minors-in- contracts/ [Accessed 10 June 2019]. Smith & Keenan, 2006.Law for Business.13 ed. s.l.:Pearson and Longman. Tan Hee Juan v. The Boon Keat(1934) FMSLR. Wu & Vohrah, 2000.The Commercial Law of Malaysia.2 ed. s.l.:Pearson and Longman. 9|P a g e