Discuss The Consideration As One Of The Elements Of A Valid

Discuss the consideration as one of the elements of a valid contract under the Malaysian law

Analyses of contract elements under Malaysian law frequently highlight consideration as a fundamental component essential for the formation of a valid contract. According to Section 26 of the Contracts Act 1950 (Malaysia), “An agreement without consideration is void,” underscoring the importance of consideration in the contractual framework. This essay explores the concept of consideration, its statutory basis, and its application within Malaysian law. Furthermore, a comparative analysis with English law will be presented, examining similarities and differences in the treatment of consideration, supported by relevant statutes and case law.

Introduction

The concept of consideration forms a core principle in contract law, serving as the inducement or price for the agreement. It is crucial to distinguish legal consideration from mere pre-existing obligations or moral duty, as courts often evaluate whether the consideration is sufficient but not necessarily adequate. Under Malaysian law, rooted in the Indian Contract Act 1872 and later legislation, consideration is codified explicitly, reflecting its significance in validating contractual agreements.

Consideration Under Malaysian Law

Section 2(d) of the Contracts Act 1950 defines consideration as “Any benefit or advantage; or any forbearance, detriment, or loss” made or suffered by a party to the contract. The statutory requirement stipulates that for a contract to be binding, it must be supported by consideration—a mutual exchange of value. The purpose of consideration is to distinguish enforceable agreements from gratuitous promises, which are generally not legally binding unless recognized as deeds.

Case law underscores this principle. In the landmark case of Chua Teck Neo v. Lim Kwan Cheng (1959), the court emphasized that consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate. Additionally, in Currie v. Misa (1875) LR 10 Ex 153, the courts articulated that consideration can take various forms, including money, services, or forbearance, as long as it holds some value.

Elements and Types of Consideration

Consideration may be executed in various ways: a promise to do something, abstain from doing something, or confer a benefit. It can be executed or executory—meaning it has already occurred or will occur in the future. For example, paying money for goods constitutes executed consideration, whereas promising to deliver goods in the future is executory consideration.

Legal Validity and Exceptions

Despite its significance, certain exceptions exist. Contracts made under coercion, misrepresentation, fraud, undue influence, or mistake may not be valid even if consideration exists. Moreover, statutory exceptions like contracts made by minors or persons of unsound mind may also restrict consideration’s role in validity.

The Malaysian Position: Statutes and Case Law

Malaysian law adheres closely to traditional principles, reinforced by statutes and decisions. For instance, Section 10 of the Contracts Act emphasizes free consent, which interrelates with consideration, as absence of genuine consideration may be contested. The courts uphold the doctrine that consideration must be lawful and not against public policy.

Comparison with English Law

English law historically shares similar principles concerning consideration, originating from common law doctrines and statutes such as the Law of Property Act 1925. However, over time, the English approach has evolved to recognize more flexible doctrines, including the doctrine of promissory estoppel, which limits the requirement for consideration in certain circumstances.

In English law, the case of Currie v. Misa (1875) has been influential as in Malaysia, recognizing that consideration can be any benefit or detriment, provided it has some value. Conversely, the doctrine of consideration in English law is more flexible, allowing for exceptions such as the binding effect of a formal deed, which does not require consideration.

Differences and Similarities

While both Malaysian and English law emphasize the necessity of consideration, Malaysian law adheres more strictly to its statutory roots, making consideration a sine qua non for validity unless exceptions apply. English law, however, recognizes equitable principles like promissory estoppel, which can preclude the need for consideration in certain cases, emphasizing fairness over rigid formalities.

Conclusion

Consideration remains a critical element of contract validity under Malaysian law, as stipulated in Section 26 of the Contracts Act 1950 and supported by jurisprudence. Though the core concept aligns with English law, Malaysian law maintains a more doctrinal approach, whereas English law has embraced equitable doctrines to evolve beyond traditional constraints. Both systems underscore that consideration must be lawful, genuine, and sufficient, ensuring that contracts are founded on mutual benefit and inducement, thereby promoting certainty and fairness in contractual relationships.

References

• Contracts Act 1950 (Malaysia)
• Indian Contract Act 1872
• Chua Teck Neo v. Lim Kwan Cheng [1959] MLJ 78
• Currie v. Misa (1875) LR 10 Ex 153
• Chen-Wishart, M. (2012). Contract Law. Oxford University Press.
• Poole, J. (2016). Textbook on Contract Law. Oxford University Press.
• Treitel, G. H. (2015). The Law of Contract. Sweet & Maxwell.
• Furmston, M. (2013). Cheshire, Fifoot and Furmston’s Law of Contract. Oxford University Press.
• McKendrick, E. (2018). Contract Law. Palgrave.
• Sealy, L. & Hooley, R. (2012). Commercial Law. Oxford University Press.