Contract Law Analysis: Void Agreements and Amir vs. Anis's Father

This assignment analyzes a contract law case involving Amir, Anis, and Anis's father. The central issue is whether Amir can legally demand money promised by Anis's father in exchange for securing Anis a job. The analysis delves into the Contract Act 1950, specifically Sections 2(g), 10(1), and 24(e), to define void agreements and unlawful consideration. The assignment argues that the agreement is void due to the unlawful consideration, as the exchange of money for a job position is against public policy and considered immoral. The analysis references the case of Parkinson v College of Ambulance Ltd [1925] 2 KB 1 to support the argument that such agreements are unenforceable. The conclusion states that Amir cannot legally demand the money because the contract is void and not legally binding.

QUESTION ONE (2)
Anis graduated from a local university two years ago. Anis has attended many interviews to
get a job but was not successful. Anis’s father had offered a sum of money to Amir, the
Human Resource Manager at the company where he worked to get Anis a position at the
same company. Anis finally managed to get a position in the company. Amir demanded the
money promised by Anis’s father but Anis’s father refused to pay. Advise Amir. (6
marks)
ISSUE: Whether Amir can demand money promised by Anis’s father?
LAW: According to Section 2(g) of the contract act 1950, an agreement not enforceable by
law is said to be void. Section 10(1) of contract act 1950 states that all agreements are
contracts if they are made by the free consent of parties competent to contract, for a lawful
consideration and with a lawful object, and are not hereby expressly declared to be void.
According to section 24(e) of the contract act 1950, the consideration or object of an
agreement is lawful, unless the court regards it as immoral, or opposed to public policy. In
each of the above cases, the consideration or object of an agreement is said to be unlawful.
Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void. Based on the
illustration (f) given, A promises to obtain B employment in the public service, and B
promises to pay RM1,000 to A. The agreement is void, as the consideration for it is unlawful.
Generally, an agreement that opposed public policy refers to an agreement that causes harm
to the public at large. There are many categories of agreement that opposed the public policy
that has been decided by the court. Some of the agreement that causes harm to public service
is an agreement to stifle criminal prosecution, illegality under foreign law or prejudicial to the
interest of a country and agreement of marriage. The agreement that causes harm to public
service involving bribery in public services. For example, Agreements for the sale of
appointments, positions and public awards is illegal and void as it contributes towards
corruption in public life. All illegal contracts cannot be enforceable. It is based on the maxim
“ex turpi causa non oritor action”, the Latin word "from a dishonourable cause an action does
not arise “. It is a legal doctrine that states that a plaintiff will be unable to pursue a legal
remedy if it arises in connection with his illegal act. The court will not assist a man whose
cause of action is based on an immoral or illegal activity. Based on the Parkinson v College
of Ambulance Ltd [1925] 2 KB 1 case, the defendant, Harrison, was the secretary of the
College of Ambulance, a charitable institution. He promised the plaintiff, Colonel Parkinson

that if he were to make a large donation to the college, he would receive a knighthood. He
told the Colonel the College had already done this on several occasions. Based on the
promise, the colonel donated more than £3,000 and promised additional payment after he has
received the promised award. Subsequently, the plaintiff failed to get the promised award and
sued the defendant for the return of his donation to receive a knighthood. The plaintiff argued
that he was entitled to reclaim the money he had paid as he had been induced by fraud to
enter the contract. The College argued that the contract was illegal as it was against public
policy. The court held that the contract to purchase an honorary public title was improper and
illegal. The agreement was based on an illegal contract and void. The problem here was that
the plaintiff could only bring an action if he relied upon his guilty conduct. The donation
could only be characterized as a contract by acknowledging that it was an illegal contract.
Similarly, he could only bring an action for misrepresentation by relying on the fact that he
had entered an illegal contract. Therefore, it was not possible to regard the agreement as a
contract. If it was not an enforceable contract, the donation was only a gift that was
irrecoverable once it was made. Therefore, the plaintiff could not recover anything.
APPLICATION: Based on Section 2 (g) of Contract Act 1950 when an agreement is not
enforceable by law it is said to be void. As we can see in the situation between Amir and
Anis’s father, according to Section 24(e) of Contract Act 1950 which provides on void
agreements, an immoral consideration is unlawful and the agreement will then be void. The
consideration which exchanging money for a position in the company is opposed by the
public moral, consequently being deemed as immoral. As it falls under Section 24 (e) it can
be agreed that the consideration of Amir and Anis’s father is unlawful. To back it up we can
see clearly in illustration of Section 24(f) of the situation, which is “A promises to obtain for
B an employment in the public service, and B promises to pay RM1,000 to A. The agreement
is void, as the consideration for it is unlawful.” The situation is almost the same as Amir and
Anis’s father where Anis’s father made a promise to Amir to pay him if his daughter gets to
work in the company. Therefore, the agreement between Amir and Anis’s father is void for
the same reason the consideration being unlawful. An agreement with unlawful consideration
ought to be void as referred in Section 24 (e). Other than that, although it has free consent
which according to Section 10 (1) CA 1950 a contract needs to have free consent from
competent parties, the agreement still considered void for it containing an unlawful
consideration as being explained above. Next referring to the case of Parkinson v College of
Ambulance Ltd [1925] 2 KB 1, it proves that the agreement between Amir and Anis’s father

is said to be unlawful and thus to be void. The reason is that the court had ruled in the case
that the action to buy an honorary public title was deemed as improper or immoral. Making
the contract between Parkinson and College of Ambulance to be void for it was an unlawful
contract, to begin with. This situation is almost the same as Amir and Anis’s situation. It is
unlikely for Amir to claim the money that is already promised to him by Anis’s father in the
court for it is unlawful and not enforceable by law. To bring a case to the court the
agreement should be lawful and enforceable by law for if not it cannot be done. Thus, for all
the above reason being the agreement said to be unlawful due to the consideration is being
immoral, the contract between Amir and Anis’s father is then void. With the reason it is not
enforceable by law Amir cannot bring the case to the court even if he wants to, simply the
reason being the contract is unlawful and it is not legally binding. A void contract is unlikely
to be ratified or approved by the legal entity. The contract is considered as it never existed in
the eyes of the law and will not be rendered enforceable in court. To highlight, the contract
between Amir and Anis’s father is a void contract, it was and will never be legally valid.
Therefore, Amir cannot bring the case to the court to demand money promised by Anis’s
father.
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, Amir cannot demand money promised by Anis’s father