English
Discuss the most appropriate defences that may be available for the contracting parties in the following situations:
i) Zana and her two friends are operating food catering business under the name of “Wow Delicious”. Recently they received a booking from Datuk D to provide catering for a thousand guests. On the day of the event, they arranged the foods to be delivered at 11.00 am to a hall in Kajang. However the lorry that was carrying the foods involved in an accident in Cheras. Advise “Wow Delicious”.
Issue:
Whether there is any defence available to Wow Delicious for being unable to deliver the foods due to the accident occurred to the lorry which carried the foods
Rule:
Section 57(2) of the Contracts Act 1950 regarding discharge by impossibility could apply to the case in question.
Section 57(2) of the Contracts Act 1950 provides that “a contract to do an act which, after the contract is made, become impossible, or by reason of some event which the promissor could not prevent, unlawful, become void when the act become impossible or unlawful.”
The circumstances under which a contract may be discharged by supervening impossibility include, inter alia, a supervening event defeats the whole purpose or object of the contract. The English case Krell v Henry [1903] 2 KB 746 is a good illustration of the above rule. In this case the court held that because the King’s illness was considered a supervening event which made it was impossible for the defendant to achieve the real purpose of the agreement, the defendant could be excused from paying the rent for the room. The main legal reasoning for the decision was that the procession had been cancelled and therefore, the purpose of the defendant to view the procession was frustrated. It was, therefore, held that the parties would be discharged from their obligations under the contract. This meant that the defendant did not have to pay the rent.
Application:
In the case at hand, Wow Delicious was unable to
i) Zana and her two friends are operating food catering business under the name of “Wow Delicious”. Recently they received a booking from Datuk D to provide catering for a thousand guests. On the day of the event, they arranged the foods to be delivered at 11.00 am to a hall in Kajang. However the lorry that was carrying the foods involved in an accident in Cheras. Advise “Wow Delicious”.
Issue:
Whether there is any defence available to Wow Delicious for being unable to deliver the foods due to the accident occurred to the lorry which carried the foods
Rule:
Section 57(2) of the Contracts Act 1950 regarding discharge by impossibility could apply to the case in question.
Section 57(2) of the Contracts Act 1950 provides that “a contract to do an act which, after the contract is made, become impossible, or by reason of some event which the promissor could not prevent, unlawful, become void when the act become impossible or unlawful.”
The circumstances under which a contract may be discharged by supervening impossibility include, inter alia, a supervening event defeats the whole purpose or object of the contract. The English case Krell v Henry [1903] 2 KB 746 is a good illustration of the above rule. In this case the court held that because the King’s illness was considered a supervening event which made it was impossible for the defendant to achieve the real purpose of the agreement, the defendant could be excused from paying the rent for the room. The main legal reasoning for the decision was that the procession had been cancelled and therefore, the purpose of the defendant to view the procession was frustrated. It was, therefore, held that the parties would be discharged from their obligations under the contract. This meant that the defendant did not have to pay the rent.
Application:
In the case at hand, Wow Delicious was unable to