CONTRACT

Absolute assignment

Pak Ki Yau & Anor v Kumpulan Promista Sdn Bhd [1999] 6 MLJ 220

In this case, the purchaser of a property assigned his rights and interests in the sale and purchase agreement to a bank. The purchaser then sued the developer for breach of contract. The issue before the court was whether the purchaser could sue the developer in his own name, or whether he had to sue as the agent of the bank.

The court held that the assignment was absolute under section 4(3) of the Civil Law Act 1956. This means that the purchaser had transferred all of his rights and interests in the property to the bank. As a result, the purchaser no longer had any legal standing to sue the developer. The court also held that the bank was not a necessary party to the action, as it had no interest in the outcome of the case.



Acceptance

Lee Seng Heng & Ors v Guardian Assurance Co Ltd [1932] MLJ 17, High Court, Straits Settlements

In this case, the plaintiffs insured their lives with the defendant. The plaintiffs sent a letter to the defendant, accepting the terms of the insurance policy. However, the defendant did not send a letter of acceptance back to the plaintiffs. The issue before the court was whether the plaintiffs' letter of acceptance was sufficient to create a binding contract.

The court held that the plaintiffs' letter of acceptance was sufficient to create a binding contract. The court reasoned that the defendant had not objected to the plaintiffs' terms of acceptance, and had in fact proceeded to issue the insurance policy. As a result, the court held that the defendant was bound by the terms of the insurance policy.



Grace Shipping Inc & Anor v CF Sharp & Co (Malaya) Pte Ltd [1987] 1 MLJ 257, Privy Council Appeal from Singapore

In this case, the plaintiffs chartered a ship from the defendants. The plaintiffs sent a telex to the defendants, confirming the terms of the charterparty. The defendants did not send a telex back to the plaintiffs, but they did send a letter confirming the terms of the charterparty. The issue before the court was whether the plaintiffs' telex was sufficient to create a binding contract.

The court held that the plaintiffs' telex was sufficient to create a binding contract. The court reasoned that the defendants had not objected to the plaintiffs' terms of acceptance, and had in fact proceeded to send a letter confirming the terms of the charterparty. As a result, the court held that the defendants were bound by the terms of the charterparty.





Contract - Acceptance - Signature - Defendant did not sign contract - Whether an oral contract can be construed from telex messages

Engineering Construction (Pte) Ltd v Ohbayashi-Gumi Ltd [1986] 1 MLJ 218, High Court, Singapore

In this case, the plaintiffs and defendants entered into a contract for the construction of a building. The contract was signed by the plaintiffs, but not by the defendants. The issue before the court was whether the defendants were bound by the contract.

The court held that the defendants were bound by the contract. The court reasoned that the defendants had not objected to the terms of the contract, and had in fact proceeded to commence construction of the building. As a result, the court held that the defendants were bound by the terms of the contract, even though they had not signed it.





Contract - Acceptance - Telex messages

Interschiff Schiffahrsagentur GmbH v Southern Star Shipping & Trading Pte Ltd [1984] 1 MLJ 342, High Court, Singapore

In this case, the plaintiffs and defendants entered into a contract for the sale of a ship. The contract was made by way of telex messages. The issue before the court was whether the contract was valid.

The court held that the contract was valid. The court reasoned that the telex messages were sufficient to create a binding contract. The court also held that the contract was not unenforceable because it was made by way of telex messages.