1) WHETHER GHAZALI BREACHED THE CONTRACT WHEN HE FAILED TO SUBMIT

F14A FOR REGISTRATION AT RELEVANT AUTHORITY?

A breach of contract is said to occur when a party to a contract expressly or impliedly fails or
refuses to perform or fails to perform satisfactorily one or more of his contractual obligations.
Section 2. Interpretation CA
(j) a contract which ceases to be enforceable by law becomes void when it ceases to be
enforceable.
S. 38 Obligation of parties to contracts
(1)The parties to a contract must either perform, or offer to perform, their respective
promises, unless the performance is dispensed with or excused under this Act, or of any
other law.
(2) Promises bind the representatives of the promisors in case of the death of the promisors
before performance, unless a contrary intention appears from the contract.
S. 47. Time for performance of promise where no application is to be made and no
time is specified
Where, by the contract, a promisor is to perform his promise without application by the
promisee, and no time for performance is specified, the engagement must be performed
within a reasonable time.
ExplanationThe question what is a reasonable time is, in each particular case, a
question of fact
S. 206. Need for proper instrument of dealing duly registered.
(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section(a) every dealing under this Act shall be effected by an instrument complying with the
requirements of sections 207 to 212; and
(b) no instrument effecting any such dealing shall operate to transfer the title to any
alienated land or, as the case may be, to create, transfer or otherwise affect any interest
therein, until it has been registered under Part Eighteen
S. 215. Form, and effect generally, of transfer of land.
(2) The title of the transferor shall pass to and vest in the transferee upon the registration of
any such transfer, together also with the benefit of any registered interests then enjoyed with
the land.
S. 292. Instruments capable of being registered and method of presentation
therefore.
(1) The following instruments may be registered under this Part, and may be presented to
the Registrar for that purpose in accordance with the provisions of sub-section
(2)- (a) any transfer under Part Fourteen of land, of an undivided share in land, or of any
lease, sub-lease or charge;
(b) any lease, sub-lease or surrender thereof under Part Fifteen;
(c) any charge, discharge or instrument of postponement under Part Sixteen:
(d) any certificate of sale under Part Sixteen; and
(e) any instrument granting or releasing any easement under Part Seventeen.
(2) Any such instrument may be so presented either by lodging it at the Registry or, as the
case may be, Land Office, or by despatching it to the Registrar by pre-paid post; and the

time of presentation shall, in the case of any instrument presented by post, be taken as the
time at which it is withdrawn from its cover in the Registry or Land Office.
(3) The Registrar shall note the time of presentation on any such instrument forthwith.
(4) The death of any person by or on behalf of whom any instrument of dealing has been
executed shall not affect the validity thereof, and any such instrument may, accordingly, be
presented for registration under this Part as if the death had not occurred.
S. 293. Fees to accompany instruments so presented.
(1) Every instrument presented for registration under this Part shall be accompanied by(a) the prescribed registration fee, and
(b) if it is presented more than three months after the date thereof, a delayed registration fee
calculated in accordance with the provisions of sub-section
In the case of Chee Hock Lai lwn Tan Swee Thai & Yang Lain (1990) 1 CLJ (Rep) 354,
one of the issues put forward by the defendant is that the action is statute barred. The sale
and purchase agreement was entered in 1949 and the action was taken later in 1983.
Defendant then applied in 1986 for an order that the sale and purchase agreement in 1949
as void and for plaintiff to return the land to defendant. Abdul Malek Ahmad J in this case
held that:
Dalam perjanjian berkenaan, kemungkiran hanya boleh berlaku melalui fasal 4 yang
menyatakan bahawa sipenjual terpaksa memulangkan balik harga tanah serta wang
tambahan sebanyak itu serta segala perbelanjaan lain sipembeli dalam memperbaiki tanah
jika dan hanya jika sipenjual gagal memindahmilik tanah tersebut selepas mendapat
perintah Mahkamah. Oleh kerana mengikut fakta-fakta kes ini, kelulusan Mahkamah belum
lagi didapati, maka soal keengganan sipenjual memindahmilik tanah tersebut kepada
sipembeli masih belum timbul lagi. Oleh itu kemungkiran belum lagi berlaku.
Mungkin boleh disarankan bahawa apabila defendan pertama memindahmilik tanah
tersebut kepada dirinya sendiri dan kepada defendan-defendan yang lain pada 1 April 1963
bermakna beliau tidak mahu mendapat kelulusan Mahkamah tentang perjanjian ini dan oleh
itu kemungkiran telah berlaku tetapi pandangan saya ialah kemungkiran bukan dalam
keengganan mendapat kelulusan Mahkamah tetapi keengganan memindahmilik selepas
mendapat kelulusan Mahkamah.