Answer 1

Liquidated damages is a statement in an agreement accommodating a predefined aggregate to be

paid as harms in the event that one gathering default will just authorize on the off chance that it
is a misfortune. If not, at that point it is viewed as (void) punishment provision the court will the
survey harms in the typical law. According to Contract Act 1950 (CA 1950), section 75 states
that At the moment that an assentation has been broken, if a whole is named in the agreement as
the sum to be paid if there should arise an occurrence of such rupture, or if the agreement
contains some other stipulation by method for punishment, the gathering grumbling of the break
is entitled, regardless of whether real harm or misfortune is demonstrated to have been caused
therefore, to get from the gathering who has broken the agreement sensible installment not
surpassing the sum so named or, all things considered, the punishment stipulated for. There are
two types of liquidated damages actual and punitive damages. For example, Alex contracts with
Adam to pay Adam RM10,000, if he fails to pay Adam RM5,000 on a given day. Alex fails to
pay Adam RM5,000 on that day, Adam is entitled to recover from Alex such compensation, not
exceeding RM1,0000, as the court considers.

Unliquidated damages are the totals of cash not set up ahead of time by the contracting parties as
a pay for a break of agreement, yet controlled by a court after such breach occurs. According to
section 74 contract Act 1950 states that:

1) When an agreement has been broken, the gathering who harms by the breach is allowed to get,
from the gathering who has broken the understanding, pay for any harm caused to him
accordingly, which normally emerged in the ordinary course of things from the break, or which
the gatherings knew, when they made the understanding, to probably result from its break.

(2) Such remuneration isn't to be given for any remote and unintended harm managed by reason
of the break.
For instance, John contracts to offer and convey 100 gantangs of saltpeter to Michael, at a
specific cost to be paid on conveyance. John breaks his guarantee. Michael is qualified for get
from John,

by method for remuneration, the entirety, assuming any, by which the agreement value misses
the mark regarding the cost for which Michael may have gotten 100 gantangs of saltpeter of like
quality when the saltpeter should have been conveyed.

The difference between liquidated damages and unliquidated damages is the place the offended
party in an activity sues for a foreordained and resolute total of money, he is requesting
exchanged harms. In any case, where he tries to case such a sum as the court, in its attentiveness,
is at freedom to grant, he is guaranteeing unliquidated harms and this so significantly more
where he has expressed specific sum of cash is pleading.

Answer 2

In this case, Steve promised to Smith in April 2007 that he will appoint Smith as a courier for
Malaysian travel. Therefore, Steve said that Smith can join work by 1 June 2007. After a month,
Steve wrote to Smith that they don’t require Smith’s job anymore. Hence, Smith wanted to sue
Steve for the breach of contract on 22 May 2007. Smith need to fulfil four elements to show a
valid and binding contract. Those four elements are proposal, acceptance, consideration and
intention to create legal relations. In this case, Smith is the plaintiff and Steve is the defendant. In
the following essay, there will be discussion on breach of contract due to Steve broke his
promise to give him job and made him wait for 2 months.

The first element that Steve needs to prove is proposal.

-Definition of offer (S2 (a) CA 1950 when one individual shows to another his willingness to do
or to withdraw from doing anything, with a opinion to obtaining the assent of that other to the act
or abstinence, he is said to make a proposal;

-Proposal has been communicated to both parties.

-According to the case of Gunthing v Lynn, the terms need to be specific. In this case, Steve had
clearly stated that he accepts him to the job by giving confirmation to join on 1 June 2007.

The second element that Steve needs to prove is acceptance.

-S2 (b) CA 1950 when one individual shows to another his willingness to do or to withdraw from
doing anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of that other to the act or abstinence, he is
said to make a proposal;

-There is a clear acceptance between Steve and Smith for the job.

The third element that Steve need to prove is consideration:

-S2 (d) CA1950 when, at the wish of the promisor, the promisee or any other individual has done
or withdrawn from doing, or does or refrains from doing, or promises to do or to refrain from
doing, something, such act or abstinence or promise is called a consideration for the promise;

-There are three types of consideration which are past consideration, executory consideration and
executed consideration.

-In this case, there is an executory consideration because there is already promise exchanged on
April 2007 and the obligations will be performed later on 1 June 2007 by joining the job.

The fourth element that Steve needs to prove ITCLR.

-Two types of ITCLR which are domestic and commercial agreements. Domestic agreements are
rebutable presumption is that agreemenet not intended to be binding. Commercial agreements are
rebutable presumption is that agreemenet intended to be binding.

-For this case, it is intended to enter into agreement under commercial agreement because both
parties don’t have special relationship than a business relationship.

Following to that, Smith wants to sue Steve for the breach of contract.

-Two type of breach which are repudiatory and anticipatory breach. If anticipatory breach, the
second party has 2 option may accept the repudiation when it is made and sue for damages.

He need not wait until the date of performance.

- An example case of anticipatory breach is Hochster v De La Tour.

This case explains that, the defendant had an agreement with the claimant to work as a courier.
But, before the commenced date the defendant said that he doesn’t need the claimant for the job.
Hence, the claimant sued for the breach of contract before the commenced date. The court held
that the claimant need not to wait until the commenced date for the job. According to the facts of
the case, Steve can successfully sue Smith for the breach of contract before the commenced date
of agreement.

-He can claim damages according to the case of East Asiatic Co. Ltd v Othman. Explain
damages and the case. Compare it with Smith’s case.

Conclusion:

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.