The Ways in Which Contracts Can Become Frustrated (Malaysia Contract Act 1950)

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s) : 849
  • Published : April 11, 2011
Open Document
Text Preview
The ways in which contracts can become frustrated
A contract may be discharged by frustration on a few circumstances. According to Section Contract Act 1950, there are provisions of three (3) clauses which may be the circumstances of frustration of contract. Generally, contract can become frustrated when an agreement to do impossible or unlawful act has been made. Referring to the Contract Act 1950, the three clauses provide for frustration of contract are as follow: * S57 (1) CA - An agreement to do an act impossible in itself is void. * Illustration – A agrees with B to discover treasure by magic. The agreement is void. * S57 (2) CA - A contract to do an act which, after the contract is made, becomes impossible, or by reason of some event which the promisor could not prevent, unlawful, becomes void when the act becomes impossible or unlawful. * Illustration – A and B contract to marry each other. Before the time fixed for the marriage, A goes mad. The contract becomes void. * S57 (3) CA - Where one person has promised to do something which he knew, or, with reasonable diligence, might have known, and which the promisee did not know, to be impossible or unlawful, the promisor must make compensation to the promisee for any loss which the promisee sustains through the non-performance of the promise. * Illustration - A contracts to marry B, being already married to C, and being forbidden by the law to which he is subject to practice polygamy. A must make compensation to B for the loss caused to her by the non-performance of his promise. From the wording of section 57 (2), it is clear that there are two instances of frustration, i.e. when a contract to do an act becomes impossible or unlawful. However, the frustration should be superevening and subsequent to the formation of the contract. It should be some event which the promisor could not prevent, as a ‘self induced frustration’ does not discharge a party from his contractual obligation...
tracking img