Government of Malaysia V. Gurcharan Singh & Ors Case Review Essay
This case is about the government of Malaysia as the plaintiff whom had sued Gurcharan Singh the first defendant whom is a promisor of a contract and ORS as the second and third defendant whom act as the sureties of the contract for breaching the contract made between them. The contract is about the government of Malaysia providing the first defendant a scholarship for his study at Malayan Teacher’s Training Institution with an agreement that the first defendant will serve the government in consideration for being trained as a teacher. The duration of the contract is 5 years while the first defendant only served the government for 3 years 10 months only. However during the time the contract was made, the first defendant was in a …show more content…
(a) one who has attained the age of majority
(b) sound of mind
(c) not disqualified by any law he/she is subjected to.
A minor is a person who has not reached the age of majority which is 18 as per Age of Majority Act 1971. Thus, under the Act, contracts entered into by a minor person are void.
NECESSARIES: Under common law, a minor is liable on contracts for ‘necessaries’. S69 of the Contracts Act merely embodied the common law of England regarding liability for necessaries supplied to a minor. In this case the necessaries term has been broadly defined to include scholarship supplies as one of necessaries. Thus, it means that if a minor contracted for any kind of necessaries including scholarship to pursue studies, such contracts are not void. Thus, the minor in this case is liable to pay the reimbursement to the government for breaching out the contract under necessaries exception.
AMOUNT PAYABLE: All the decisions on the payment for necessaries have referred to the payment not of the stipulated prices but of a reasonable price for them. However learned federal counsel relied on the case of Government of Malaysia v. Thelma Fernandez and Anor in which Raja Azlan Shah J. held that the provision for repayment for breach was not a penalty but a genuine and reasonable estimate of