Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

CONTRACT 2 (R2)

MUHAMMAD FAIZ BIN MOHD ASRI


ILLEGALITY
Issue 1:

The issue is whether the contract between UITM taekwondo team contracted
with freedom flight is void for illegality by virtue of section 24(a)

Law 1:

Contract Act 1950 states that the consideration or object of an agreement is lawful
unless (a) it is forbidden by a law,(b) it is of Section 24 is the primary source of
illegality in Malaysia.Section 24 of the such a nature that,if permitted,it would defeat any
law (c) it is fraudulent (d) it involves or implies injury to the person or property of another
and lastly is (e) the court regards it as immoral,or opposed to public policy.

Section 24 (a) of Contract Act 1950 states that agreement forbidden by law.It
refers to express contraventions of the law,most commonly provided in statutes.The
contract is said to be illegal and unenforceable under Section 24(a) because it involves
consent by both parties to do an act prohibited by the statute.It must be ascertained if
the statute prohibits/forbids the act which the parties have contracted to do not whether
the statute prohibits the contract or the making of the contract.

This can be seen in the case of Haji Hamid Ariffin v Ahmad Mahmud that
involves the sale of Malay Reserve Land.In this case it was held that the sale to the
Siamese Lady was void ab initio as section 6(1) of the Kedah Malay Reservation
Enactment provides that where any Reservation land is held under a document of title
by a Malay,no right or interest therein shall vest,whether by transfer or otherwise,in any
person who is not a Malay.By section 6(2),any document or agreement purporting to
vest in any person any right or interest contrary to the above provisions shall be
void.Thus,neither could the Siamese lady enforce the sale nor can she pass a good title
to another even if the other is Malay,as no one can give that which he has not.
Application 1:

Based on the situation between UITM taekwondo and Freedom Flight Sdn Bhd it
can be said that it is an agreement forbidden by the law because Freedom Flight’s
buses are not licensed to carry passengers to Thailand.This is because they had
discovered that the bus is unlicensed and the bus company also sued uitm so it is
considered illegal and unenforceable because it involves consent by both parties to do
an act prohibited by the statute.

Conclusion 1:

As a conclusion UITM can sue Freedom Flights because UITM did not know that
Freedom Flights buses are not licensed to carry passengers to Thailand.

Issue 2:

The issue is whether the contract between Piyapong and Ramli is void for
illegality by virtue of Section 24(d)

Law 2:

Contract Act 1950 states that the consideration or object of an agreement is


lawful unless (a) it is forbidden by a law,(b) it is of Section 24 is the primary source
of illegality in Malaysia.Section 24 of the such a nature that,if permitted,it would defeat
any law (c) it is fraudulent (d) it involves or implies injury to the person or property of
another and lastly is (e) the court regards it as immoral,or opposed to public policy.

Section 24(d) of Contract Act 1950 states that the agreement involves or implies
injury to the person or property of another.This can be seen in the case of Syed
Ahamed Mohamed Alhabshee v Puteh Satu.In this case it was held that where the case
involved the sale of land belonging to a minor at an undervalue,the court held that the
agreement was to the detriment of the minor as it appears to be an agreement involving
an injury to the property of another,and is therefore,void.

Application 2:
So,based on the situation between Ramli and Piyapong the contract was illegal and
void this is because Ramli intention was to imply injury to the bus driver by asking
Piyapong to kick the bus driver and make him unconscious.That is why he promised to
pay Piyapong RM50 because of Piyapong had caused injury to the bus driver.

Conclusion 2:

As a conclusion,Piyapong cannot claim the RM50 from Ramli because the


contract between them is illegal and void because their intention was to imply injury to
another person.