Business Law Assignment for Part 2 Question

...

The statutory exceptions of perol evidence proviso A-F was fulfilled because the contract under proviso A of section 92 says invalidity of the document but the document which mark sign was a valid document.

Mark played a vital role in Sydney Athletic team as he was a professional basketball player who agreed to be bound by the contract. Based on the classical test, the absence of Mark will definitely affect the team performance of Sydney Athletic. It had gone into the root of the contract. Similar outcome can be seen in Poussard v Spiers, Madame Poussard was in breach of condition and Spiers were entitled to end the contract as she missed the most important performance during the opening night. Meanwhile, by applying the modern test, we can accord it with the case of Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, the court introduced the innominate term approach to look to the effect of the breach and ask if it has substantially deprived the innocent party of the whole benefit of the contract. Mark’s refusal to play for Sydney Athletic might cause disastrous consequences to the team such as facing the risk of defeat in matches and struggling through the unstable sporting prospect. Therefore, the term was hereby to be classified as a condition.

Lastly, we discuss about the breach of condition and the rights and remedies of Sydney Athletic.

Mark agreed to play for the KL Panthers team for 3 years beginning last week while he was still being bound by a valid contract with Sydney Athletic. Literally, this evidence has shown that Mark had breached the condition of his contract with Sydney Athletic.

When a party to a contract has refused to perform, or disabled himself from performing, his promise in its entirety, the promisee may put an end to the contract, unless he has signified, by words or conduct, his acquiescence in its continuance. According to Hwa Chea Lin & Anor v Malim Jaya (Melaka) Sdn Bhd, the court held that the breach had gone to the root of the contract since the outcome delivered was not what had been agreed upon, it entitled the plaintiffs to rescind the contract. Similar to this case, Sydney Athletic team is also allowed to do so.

Because of Mark breaching the condition, it entitles the innocent party which is Sydney Athletic team to choose either one of the following remedies: (a) repudiate the contract; (b) repudiate the contract and sue for damages; or (c)alternatively, elect to treat the breach of condition as a breach of warranty by going on with the contract and sue for damages only. As according to Associated Metal Smelters v Tham Cheow Toh, the Federal Court held that there are a breach in condition of the contract but the respondent chose to treat the breach in condition as breach in warranty and only claim for the damages. To sum up, Sydney Athletic team is said to have the right of suing Mark for breaching the condition and by claims damages by the breach of condition as a breach of warranty. deciding the three remedies that have been mentioned above.

CONLUSION: With all the evidence of consideration by Sydney club to mark and by meeting all the four necessary approach to enforce a legal contract mark does not have the right to accept kuala lumpur panthers teams for RM150,000 per year for three years.