The Reasonable Price of Disloyalty

Is actual loss still the true north in assessing what is reasonable compensation when section 75 of the Contracts Act 1950 is engaged, post-Cubic Electronics?  The Court of Appeal recently had to consider such compensation for the disloyalty of a political party member. Continue reading “The Reasonable Price of Disloyalty” →

AFFIRM CONTRACT, LOSE LAD

Affirming a construction contract – instead of terminating it due to the contractor’s delay – resulted in the loss of entitlement to liquidated and ascertained damages (“LAD”).  This was one of the grounds for dismissing a LAD claim in the recent High Court case of  Universiti Tecknologi MARA v Magna Metier Sdn Bhd [2022] 5 AMR 583. Continue reading “AFFIRM CONTRACT, LOSE LAD” →

THE CUBIC PUZZLE & LIQUIDATED DAMAGES IV – BACK TO THE PAST?

In the recent case of Tekun Nasional Sdn Bhd v Plenitude Drive (M) Sdn Bhd [2021] 8 AMR 427, the Federal Court (“FC“) appears to conflate the concepts under the old and new law as to how section 75, Contracts Act 1950 is to be applied to liquidated damages clauses.

Continue reading “THE CUBIC PUZZLE & LIQUIDATED DAMAGES IV – BACK TO THE PAST?” →

THE CUBIC PUZZLE & LIQUIDATED DAMAGES III – MORE CONFUSION

This final part of the Cubic Puzzle series highlights further confusion arising from the Cubic case, due to discrepancies between the principles enunciated by the FC and their purported application to the facts. Continue reading “THE CUBIC PUZZLE & LIQUIDATED DAMAGES III – MORE CONFUSION” →

THE CUBIC PUZZLE & LIQUIDATED DAMAGES II – THE PROPORTIONALITY CONFUSION

Following the Cubic Puzzle I, this post highlights the confusion over what is the test to decide if the agreed amount payable on breach (“damages clause amount”) is “reasonable compensation” under section 75, Contracts Act 1950. Continue reading “THE CUBIC PUZZLE & LIQUIDATED DAMAGES II – THE PROPORTIONALITY CONFUSION” →