Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Section 75 contract act 1950

Legal area

Court

21 Mar 2024

ABDUL HADI BIN HAJI BAHAROM MUHAMMAD HARIZ BIN MD YUSOFF

Citation

WA-11BNCC-12-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-11BNCC-12-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appeal allowed: the RM50,000 clause is an excessive and unenforceable penalty under section 75 because it is disproportionate to the plaintiff's legitimate interest and the highest conceivable loss (RM15,000), the Magistrate erred in applying the burden of proof such that the appellant discharged the burden of showing unreasonableness by reliance on disproportion (over three times the investment).
2 Dec 2020

FLYGLOBAL CHARTER SDN BHD (Company No.: 1187112-W) 1) SACHMUKH SINGH A/L CHANAN SINGH (I/C No.: 710902-10-5263) 2) MANJEET KAUR A/P RANJIT SINGH (I/C No.: 740804-08-6078)

Citation

WA-A52NCvC-673-07/2019 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-A52NCvC-673-07/2019 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Defendants failed to particularise or prove actionable misrepresentation; the training bond and guarantee were validly signed and separate from the LOA; breach by resignation during the bonded period was established; Section 75 entitles the plaintiff to enforce the agreed liquidated sum without proof of actual loss; extrinsic evidence contrary to the written bond is inadmissible under s91 Evidence Act; therefore defendants are jointly and severally liable for the bonded sum less lawful set-offs.