Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 195 views

    Law 101

    Uploaded by

    TahsinaZaman
    In conclusion, according to the theory that I just explained above, there is a contract between Smith and Steve, an argument between both parties against the action before the 1st of June is urged from the difficulty of computing the damages because the innocent party waited approximately 2 months and Steve suddenly breach the contract. Hence, Smith can sue Steve for the breach of contract and claim for the damages.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Law 101

    Uploaded by

    TahsinaZaman
    195 views2 pages
    In conclusion, according to the theory that I just explained above, there is a contract between Smith and Steve, an argument between both parties against the action before the 1st of June is urged from the difficulty of computing the damages because the innocent party waited approximately 2 months and Steve suddenly breach the contract. Hence, Smith can sue Steve for the breach of contract and claim for the damages.

    Original Title

    law101

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    In conclusion, according to the theory that I just explained above, there is a contract between Smith and Steve, an argument between both parties against the action before the 1st of June is urged from the difficulty of computing the damages because the innocent party waited approximately 2 months and Steve suddenly breach the contract. Hence, Smith can sue Steve for the breach of contract and claim for the damages.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    195 views2 pages

    Law 101

    Uploaded by

    TahsinaZaman
    In conclusion, according to the theory that I just explained above, there is a contract between Smith and Steve, an argument between both parties against the action before the 1st of June is urged from the difficulty of computing the damages because the innocent party waited approximately 2 months and Steve suddenly breach the contract. Hence, Smith can sue Steve for the breach of contract and claim for the damages.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    According to Contract Act 1950 S75 ‘When a contract has been broken, if a sum is named in

    the contract as the amount to be paid in case of such breach, or if the contract contains any other
    stipulation by way of penalty, the party complaining of the breach is entitled, whether or not
    actual damage or loss is proved to have been caused thereby, to receive from the party who has
    broken the contract reasonable compensation not exceeding the amount so-named or, as the case
    may be, the penalty stipulated for.’ A liquidated damages clause or an agreed damages clause, is
    an arrangement in a contract that fixes the sum payable as damages for a party's breach. For e.g.
    Russel contracts with Conrad that if he practices as a surgeon within New York, he will pay
    Conrad 10,000usd. Russel practices as a surgeon in New York breaching the contract. Conrad is
    entitled to such compensation, not exceeding 10,000usd, as the court considers reasonable.

    On the other hand, unliquidated damage is the sum of money assessed by the court as
    compensation payable to the party who has suffered a loss. According to Contract Act 1950
    S74(a) ‘When a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by the breach is entitled to
    receive, from the party who has broken the contract, compensation for any loss or damage
    caused to him thereby, which naturally arose in the usual course of things from the breach, or
    which the parties knew, when they made the contract, to be likely to result from the breach of it,’
    stated that the party who had breached is liable to compensate the suffering party a foreseeable
    sum which could be assumed while both the parties entered into the contract. However, “such
    compensation is not to be given for any remote and indirect loss or damage sustained by the
    reason of the breach,” as stated by S74(b) of the Contract Act implies that any other damage
    which is not related or occurred due to a result of the breach of contract is not recoverable by the
    suffering party. As in the case of: East Asiatic Co. Ltd v. Othman [1966] 2 MLJ 38 the claimant
    can claim for special damages such as the difference between the prices of goods as contracted.
    Unliquidated damages are damages for a party's breach which have not been pre-estimated. For
    e.g.: Lee contracts to sell and deliver 50 gantangs of saltpetre to Mike, at a certain price to be
    paid on delivery. Lee breaks his promise, Mike is entitled to receive from Lee, by way of
    compensation, the sum, of any, by which the contract price falls short of the price for which
    Mike might have obtained 50 gantangs of saltpetre of like quality at the time when the saltpetre
    ought to have been delivered.
    Steve agreed in April 2007 to engage Smith as a courier for Malaysian travel, his duties to commence on
    1 June 2007. On 11 May 2007, Steve wrote to Smith saying that he no longer required Smith’s services.
    Feeling unsatisfied, Smith decided to commence an action for breach of contract on 22 May 2007. Steve
    contended that there was no cause of action until the date due for performance. Advise Smith

    You might also like