Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
The contract is voidable at the option of the party whose c
Transcript of The contract is voidable at the option of the party whose c
MADAM AZZA ISMA MOIDEEN
IMAN NADHEERA AMANI BT MOHD SHAH
NORHALIDA BINTI MUSA
SITI NURADILA BT MOHD SALEH
The contract is voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused [Section 19 (1) of the Contracts Act 1950]
Section 16 of the Contracts Act 1950
In jurisprudence, "undue influence" is happend when one person taking advantage of a position to dominate the will of the other person and uses that position ( influence action ) to obtain and unfair advantage over the other.
WHO ARE THE PERSON CAN INVOLVES ON THIS CASE?
Parent vs Child [Illustration (a)]
Doctor vs Patient
Moneylander vs The borrower [Illustration (b)]
Banker vs Client (Based on fact)
Case: Kesarmal s/o Letchman Das v. Valiappa Chettiar
A transfer of property which was made under the order of the Sultan issued in the ominous presence of two Japanese officers during the Japanese occupation of Malaya, was had to be not valid. This is because that the consent given was not free and therefore, the transfer became voidable at the will of the party whose consent was so caused.
Section 15 of the Contract Act 1950
Committing, or threatening to commit any act forbidden by the Penal Code, or the unlawful detaining or threatening to details, any property,
Eg. Causing grievous hurt, kidnapping, criminal force and assault, rape, culpable homicide, murder, extortion.
The defendant have to provide proof that the plaintiff was in a position to dominate his will and thus obtained an unfair advantage by using the said position.
EFFECT OF FRAUD
CASE: DERRY V PEEK
Henry William Peek
Investor on this company
Sued by William Derry
Director of the company
Section 17 of the Contracts Act provides for the definition of ‘fraud
or without belief in its truth,
or recklessly, not caring whether it is true or false
EFFECT OF UNDUE INFLUENCE
The contract is voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused [Section 20 of the Contracts Act 1950]
Effect of coercion
Case : Malaysians French Bank Bhd.v. Abdullah bin Mohd Yusof & Ors
The contract is voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused [Section 19(1) of the Contracts Act 1950]