Case Law
wCASE LAW * STILK v MYRICK (Law Of Contract: Rules of Consideration-m/s 18)
Facts: the captain of a ship promises his crew that if they shared between them the work of two seamen who had deserted, the wages of the deserters would be shared out between them.
Held: the promise was not binding because the seamen gave no consideration. They were already contractually bound to do any extra work to complete the voyage. * HEARTLEY v PONSONBY (Law Of Contract: Rules of Consideration-m/s 18)
Facts: A ship’s crew had been seriously depleted by a number of desertions. The captain promise to the remaining crew to pay 40 pounds extra if they would complete the voyage.
Held: The promise was binding because they did more than is obliged to do in dangerous situation. * PHANG SWEE KIM v BEH I HOCK (Law Of Contract: Rules of Consideration-m/s 17) Facts: The promisor offered to sell his land at a price of RM500 although the land worth much more. Later, the promisor changed his mind and refused to transfer the land. Held: There was binding contract even though the consideration was inadequate. * SIMPKIN v PAYS ( Law of Contract: Intention to create legal relation m/s 20)
Facts: Grandmother, grandchild and tenant entered into competition weekly in newspaper. They agreed to share the prize had they won it. They shared all expenses and had used the tenant’s name to enter the competition. Later, the tenant refused to share the prize.
Held: The tenant must share the prize with grandmother and grandchild since they had equally contributed from the beginning of the competition. * KESARMAL s/o LETCHMAN DAS v VALIAPPA CHETTIAR (Law Of Contract: Free consent, Voidable and Void Contracts m/s 22)
Facts: The transfer of property issued in the presence of two Japanese officer during the Japanese occupation of Malaysia.
Held: The transfer was not made with free consent and voidable. * INCHE NORIAH v SHAIKH ALLIE BIN OMAR (Law Of Contract: Free
Facts: the captain of a ship promises his crew that if they shared between them the work of two seamen who had deserted, the wages of the deserters would be shared out between them.
Held: the promise was not binding because the seamen gave no consideration. They were already contractually bound to do any extra work to complete the voyage. * HEARTLEY v PONSONBY (Law Of Contract: Rules of Consideration-m/s 18)
Facts: A ship’s crew had been seriously depleted by a number of desertions. The captain promise to the remaining crew to pay 40 pounds extra if they would complete the voyage.
Held: The promise was binding because they did more than is obliged to do in dangerous situation. * PHANG SWEE KIM v BEH I HOCK (Law Of Contract: Rules of Consideration-m/s 17) Facts: The promisor offered to sell his land at a price of RM500 although the land worth much more. Later, the promisor changed his mind and refused to transfer the land. Held: There was binding contract even though the consideration was inadequate. * SIMPKIN v PAYS ( Law of Contract: Intention to create legal relation m/s 20)
Facts: Grandmother, grandchild and tenant entered into competition weekly in newspaper. They agreed to share the prize had they won it. They shared all expenses and had used the tenant’s name to enter the competition. Later, the tenant refused to share the prize.
Held: The tenant must share the prize with grandmother and grandchild since they had equally contributed from the beginning of the competition. * KESARMAL s/o LETCHMAN DAS v VALIAPPA CHETTIAR (Law Of Contract: Free consent, Voidable and Void Contracts m/s 22)
Facts: The transfer of property issued in the presence of two Japanese officer during the Japanese occupation of Malaysia.
Held: The transfer was not made with free consent and voidable. * INCHE NORIAH v SHAIKH ALLIE BIN OMAR (Law Of Contract: Free