Phang Swee Kim V Beh I Hock Issue

Phang swee kim v beh i hock mlj 383 sale of a land for 500 when it was worth more than that.

Phang swee kim v beh i hock issue. The respondent later refused to honour the promise contending that the promise was unenforceable. Vsphang swee kimbeh i hocksomewhere in 1944 beh i hock the respondent khoo hock lim husband s phang swee kim at beh i hock s landbeh i hock show his land to khoo hock limbeh i hock transferred his half share of the landin question to khoo hock limin consideration of 20 000 in japanese currencya contract are madebut the tranferred of the land not registered one day khoo hock lim fought. In phang swee kim v. International islamic university malaysia iium.

The trail court judge held that the agreement was void due to inadequacy of consideration. The adequacy of the consideration may be an issue in cases where the position is taken that there was no free consent given to the agreement. Need to have the same value or equal value of the exchange in an agreement but the law will take it as a consideration as adequate if the parties are agreed to the exchange. Guthrie waugh bhd v malaippan muthuchumaru 1972 2 mlj 62 phang swee kim v.

383 case 15 the agreement is valid as the consent of promissory is freely given. Performance of existing duty. According to case phang swee kim v beh i hock the respondent agreed to transfer to the appellant a parcel of land on payment of 500 when the land was subdivided. Unsubscribe from sheeda sabri.

Thus in malaysia the case of phang swee kim v beh i hock mlj 383 the respondent alleged that the appellant has trespassed on his land and he instituted an action claiming for possession and also for an account of all income received by the appellant from the land. Phang swee kim v beh i hock mlj 383 the respondent agreed to transfer to the appellant a parcel of land on payment of 500 when the land was subdivided although the land was worth much more. Carlill v carbolic smoke ball company 1892 ewca civ 1 duration. The federal court held that by virtue of explanation 2 to section 26 of the contracts acts 1950 the inadequacy of the consideration was immaterial.

Seller refused to honour promise citing that the price was inadequate for a consideration. This was illustrated in the case of phang swee kim v beh i hock 1964 the respondent s solicitor notified the appellant that she had trespassed on the said land and claimed for vacant possession and for an account of all income received by her from the land.