Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
the
Question 2:
Amar was looking for an apartment and he came
across a pamphlet about Sri Desa, a new
condominium situated in a new township of Setiajaya.
According to the pamphlet, the condominium is under
the management of Elite Sdn Bhd with 24 hours
security guard and regular bus services available to
the LRT station. Amar went to the office of Elite Sdn
Bhd and met the manager who basically confirmed
what was stated in the pamphlet. Amar agreed to rent
an apartment to the condominium.
Question 2
Issues 1
Case
[Kheng Chwee Lian v Wong Tak Thong]
Facts
R bought half share of land from A.R build a biscuit factory on
part of the land with knowledge and consent of A.
Later A induce R to sign another agreement that give R smaller
share of land which is smaller than the area
occupied by the said factory.
Held
Where on party induce the other to contract on the face of the
representation made to him,anyone of which is untrue,the whole
contract is considered as having been obtained fraudulently
within the meaning mentioned in Section 17 (a) and (d).
Application
In applying Amar's case,the pamphlet contained the false statement regarding
to the facilities provided by the Elite Sdn Bhd at Sri Desa
Condominium.As the manager of the company,it is the manager's
knowledge regarding to any details on facilities provided to the
condomunium.But the managers makes a representation on behalf of the
company to misled Amar to buy the condominium which the representation
was by him believed to be untrue.
Conclusion
The manager's representation was falls under Section 17 (a) of Contract Act
that he was induce Amar to enter into the contract of purchasing the
condomunium by using a false statement as to the fact of the facilities
provided by the condomunium.
Issue 2
Whether Amar can sue Elite Sdn Bhd for fraud and claim for
damages?
Authority
Section 19 (1) of Contract Act 1950
When consent to an agreement is caused by coercion,fraud or
misrepresentation,the agreement is a contract voidable at the option of the
party whose consent was so caused.
Section 19 (2) of Contract Act 1950
A party to contract,whose consent was caused by fraud or misrepresentation
may he thinks fit insists the contract shall be performed and he shall put in
the position which he would have been if the representation made had been
true.
Limitation on Right to Rescind-Affirmation
The misled party may affirm the contract by express or action shows his
intention of affirm,he cannot later rescind the contract.Where the misled
party fails to exercise his rights for a considerable time after discovering
the representation to be untrue,the lapse of time may amout to acceptance
of goods or affirmation.
Case
[ Long v Lloyd]
Facts
P bought a lorry from D.When it was delivered P become aware that there was
something seriously wrong with the vehicle and that its condition had been
misrepresented to him.This knowledge,however did not prevent P from
driving the lorry next morning.When he took the lorry out for second
time,the engine stop working completely.P sued to rescind the contract.
Held
By taking the lorry out for second time after acquiring the knowledge that it
was defective,P had affirmed the contract.His application for rescission
was dismissed.
Application
As apply to the Amar's case,after living for two months,Amar realize that all
the information provided by the manager was false.But he still continue to
live there although he need to spend some money to park his car at LRT
station.Until his house was broke in by a thief.Amar's action of continue
living at the condominium shows his intention of affirming the contract
and he wants to sue the company when his house was broke in by thief but
not when he realize the fact provided by Elite Sdn Bhd to be untrue.
Conclusion
By continue living in the condominum after he realize all information
provided by Elite Sdn Bhd is false,Amar had affirmed the contract.His
application for rescission could be dismissed.