SAMPLES OF GOOD ANSWER TAKEN FROM STUDENT’S SUBMISSION

** Below are some good answers written by your fellow course mates. The answers are not perfect
BUT these answer shows what is expected from a student’s answer. The language used is simple, easy
to understand but still fulfill the requirement.

QUESTION ONE

Sample Answer 1

Frustration of contract can be defined as a legal termination of contract due to unforeseeable

circumstances that make the initial contract virtually incapable of completing. Frustration can be cause
by events that happened such as changes in law, injunctions, or even acts of god. As an example Taylor v
Caldwell. Here it explains that frustration of contract occurs due to a fire which burnt the music hall,
which means the claimant action for breach of contract failed and the contract had been frustrated as
the fire meant the contract was impossible to be perform. This shows that duty of a party shall be
discharged under the contract if the performance of the contract involves a certain goods which are
destroyed without fault of either party hence rendering the performance impossible.

Sample Answer 2

Frustration of contract is that discharge occurs when the contract obligations cannot be met because of
unforeseen circumstances whereby the contract will also get frustrated. Besides that, the effect of
frustration automatically ends the contract without anyone's fault and also can be asked for restitution.
For example, banning attendance at event venues due to virus outbreak Covid-19, such as pubs, clubs,
business conference centers or any concerts that will be performed by foreign artists. Another example
would be a famous dancer was appointed to perform at a movie audio launch but unfortunately on that
day that person had a serious accident and lost his both legs. This is considered as it happened beyond
our control.

QUESTION TWO

Sample Answer 1

There are few different remedies a party may consider when the other party has breached their
contractual obligations. But in some cases, monetary compensation could not replace the damages
entirely and could still cause dissatisfaction to the plaintiff. This is where Specific Performance could be
used as a remedy. The court would order the defendant to fulfill his promises made in the contract by
performing a specific task that will compensate the plaintiff. For example, Zack owns one of the five
Lamborghini Venono ever produced making it super rare. Daniel offered a price to Zack stating he is
interest to purchase the car. Zack agrees to the offer and they both have a valid contract. Right before
the exchange, Zack decided to keep the car. Zack has now breached the contract. The court understood
that the car is extremely precious as it is almost impossible to be replaced with another one. Then the
court decides that Zack should sell the car to Daniel for the price they agreed on earlier. This is called a
specific performance.
Sample Answer 2

Specific performance is the use of court’s authority to direct the contract to be performed according to
its terms. Specific performance is usually plead to the court in trust cases and where there is no
adequate relief such as, money.

For example, Mr Ghani a multi-millionaire entered into a contract to purchase an antique car with
another multi-millionaire, Mrs Hany. The antique car was the first edition manufactured by Ferrari and
there are only of them exist in the entire world, which is currently owned by Mrs Hany. The contract has
been agreed by Mrs Hany to sell the car for RM 30m. One day, Mrs Hany changed her mind and decided
not to sell the car for personal reasons, and decided to compensate by refunding the money, RM 30m.
Mr Ghani can plead to the court for specific performance as the money is not and adequate relief to him
and the fact that the car is the only adequate relief for its exclusivity. Under specific performance, the
court could direct Mrs Hany to sell her car if the car is exclusive and fairness exist between both parties
in the contract.

PROBLEM BASED QUESTION – SAMPLE OF GOOD ANSWER

ISSUE

The issue in this case is whether Juliet can sue Obama for misrepresentation when Juliet buys the land
from Obama?

RULE

There are 4 factors vitiating contracts. First is Misrepresentation. Misrepresentation refer to certain false
statement of existing or past fact made by a person before or at the time of making the contract which
induces a party to enter into a contract. In Misrepresentation vs. Fraud explains fraud is wilful deceit
while misrepresentation is merely not presenting entire information. Misrepresentation sometimes
takes place as the person may not have knowledge of entire facts, but fraud is committed in the light of
the day and the purpose is gaining at the expense of another party

This statement is proven in the case of Keates v The Earl of Cadogan in (1851) 10 CB 591.Whether a
landlord has a duty to inform a prospective tenant of the poor quality of the property. The fact is the
defendant entered into an agreement with the claimant for the lease of a property for a term of three
years. The claimant intended to reside in the property with his family. The property concerned was in an
extremely poor structural condition and was likely to collapse at any stage. The defendant however,
despite knowing of this condition, did not inform the claimant of it during the negotiations for the lease,
nor did the defendant inform the claimant after the claimant had agreed the lease and begun to occupy
the property with his family. Ultimately, a large part of the property collapsed and the claimant sought
to rescind the contract, or alternatively commence action in tort for his losses. The issue in this
circumstance was whether a landlord has an obligation to inform a prospective tenant of the poor state
of a property prior to entering into a lease with said tenant. It was held that no obligation is placed on a
landlord to inform a tenant as to the state of a property prior to entering into a lease. A claim will only
arise for a tenant in these circumstances if the landlord gives an express warranty as to the condition of
the property or where the landlord actively deceives the tenant as to the property’s condition. The court
in this instance found in favour of the defendant.

Second factor that vitiating contracts is fact, not opinion. This statement is proven in the case of Bisset v
Wilkinson in 1927AC 177. Whether a statement is one of fact or opinion for the purposes of rescinding a
contract. The fact is the defendant in this matter was the purchaser of land in New Zealand which was
purchased by the claimant for the purpose of sheep farming. The appeal, to which this judgment relates,
is on the defendant’s counterclaim. During the purchase process, the claimant informed the defendant
that the land being purchased was capable of sustaining 2000 sheep. However, after the purchase the
defendant discovered that this was only possible if very careful land management was carried out, and
that the land as it stood could not sustain this number of sheep. The defendant therefore sought to
rescind the contract on the basis that the claimant’s statement was a misrepresentation. The issue in
this circumstance was whether the statement made by the claimant could be considered a statement of
fact in terms of being a representation, or whether it was simply an opinion held by the claimant. It was
held that the claimant’s statement was nothing more than an opinion as to the capacity of the land,
based on the claimant’s knowledge of farming, together with the defendant’s knowledge of the current
stock. The statement was not therefore held to be a representation. In any event, the defendant had not
been able to demonstrate that the land was not capable of carrying the 2000 sheep that the claimant
had stated, and therefore the claimant’s appeal was allowed and the contract could not be rescinded.

Third factor that vitiating contracts is must be addressed to plaintiff. This statement is proven in the case
of Peek v Gurney in (1873) LR 6 HL 377 and the Coram is Lord Cairns. A prospectus for an intended
company was issued by promoters who were aware of the disastrous liabilities of the business of over
end and Gurney which the company was to purchase. The prospectus made no mention of a deed of
arrangement under which those liabilities were, in effect, to be transferred to the company. The
appellant bought shares in the company and, when it was wound up, he was declared liable as a
contributory and had to pay almost andpound;100,000. He sought an indemnity against the directors,
alleging misrepresentation and concealment of facts by the directors in the prospectus. The held is his
action failed because he had not in fact relied on the prospectus but had purchased the shares in the
market. Lord Cairns expressed his agreement with the observations of Lord Chelmsford and Lord Colon
say that mere silence could not be a sufficient foundation for the proceedings: ‘Mere non-disclosure of
material facts, however morally censurable, however that non-disclosure might be a ground in a proper
proceeding at a proper time for setting aside an allotment or a purchase of share, would in my opinion
form no ground for an action in the nature of an action for misrepresentation. There must, in my
opinion, be some active misstatement of fact, or, at all events, such a partial and fragmentary statement
of fact, as that the withholding of that which is not stated makes that which is stated absolutely false.’

Forth factor that vitiating contracts is must induced the contract. This statement is proven in the case of
Attwood v Small [1838] UKHL J60. The claimants purchased Corn greaves estate from the defendant for
£600,000. Corng reaves estate consisted of mining land, iron works and various properties including a
mansion house. Many of the properties were subject to leasehold and generated income. The mines
were to be worked by and profit to go to the claimant. A preliminary agreement was made between the
parties whereby the claimant agreed to purchase subject to being satisfied that the reports and
accounts given by the defendant were accurate. The claimant then had his accountants and directors
check out the accounts and reports who were satisfied they were accurate. The claimant then
proceeded with the purchase. It then transpired that the accounts had greatly exaggerated the income
generated by the estate and the claimant sought to rescind the contract based on the
misrepresentations contained in the reports and accounts. The held is the claimant was unsuccessful. By
getting his own experts to check out the reports he had not relied on the accounts but his own
judgment.

In section 2(I) and section 19 states the Voidability of agreements without free consent. When consent
to an agreement is caused by coercion, fraud, or misrepresentation, the agreement is a contract
voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused. A party to a contract, whose consent
was caused by fraud or misrepresentation, may, if he thinks fit, insist that the contract shall be
performed, and that he shall be put in the position in which he would have been if the representations
made had been true

In section 65 states the copy and restore. Voidability of agreements without free consent. When consent
to an agreement is caused by coercion, fraud, or misrepresentation, the agreement is a contract
voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused. A party to a contract, whose consent
was caused by fraud or misrepresentation, may, if he thinks fit, insist that the contract shall be
performed, and that he shall be put in the position in which he would have been if the representations
made had been true .Exception—If such consent was caused by misrepresentation or by silence,
fraudulent within the meaning of section 17, the contract, nevertheless, is not voidable, if the party
whose consent was so caused had the means of discovering the truth with ordinary diligence.

THE MISREPRESENTATION BY OBAMA

(1) I’m no weather expert”, replied Obama, “but the weather here is absolutely wonderful and I
think we had about 150 centimetres of rain this year and the sun is up all year round, which is great for
my pineapples. In fact, my profit for last year alone comes up to RM 400,000.”
(2) Obama told her that Green Acres has excellent roads and that it will take only 20 minutes to
reach the town centre.
(3) Obama replied “RM 400,000. Don’t take my word; you can check my accounts if you like.” Juliet
laughed and said, “Oh, never mind, I’m just asking, you know I’m not going to plant anything, it’s the
land and the scenery I’m after.”

APPLICATION

In this case, the first misrepresentation is “ I’m no weather expert”, replied Obama, but the weather
here is absolutely wonderful and I think we had about 150 centimetres of rain this year and the sun is up
all year round, which is great for my pineapples”. Representation on weather is not fact only opinion.
This statement is proven in the case of bisset v Wilkinson. This is not misrepresentation by Obama as it is
not voidable and become a valid contract. In fact, “my profit for last year alone comes up to RM
400,000.” This statement will be the possible misrepresentation that may induce Juliet to enter into the
contract. So in conclusion, as per the issue, Juliet cannot sue Obama for misrepresentation when Juliet
buys the land from Obama based on misrepresentation 1 because of Obama’s opinion. In addition
Obama also said to check the account, but Juliet fail to check the account. So this is not voidable and
Juliet cannot sue Obama.

The second misrepresentation is, “Obama told Juliet that Green Acres has excellent roads and that it will
take only 20 minutes to reach the town centre. Juliet made known to Obama why she wants to buy
“making it clear to Obama that even if she were to buy the plantation and live on it, she does not intend
to forgot her social life and would want to make journey to the town as often as possible to keep in
touch with her friends. “I’m a city girl you see; I’d lose my mind if I were to be stuck here for more than a
week” she adds.” She bought the plantation because she want to go to town as the road conditions is
important for her travel. But in reality,
The road condition is bad but Juliet who had flown to Green Acres from the main land for the inspection.
In exception, if such consent was caused by misrepresentation or by silence,
Fraudulent within the meaning of section 17, the contract, nevertheless, is not
Voidable, if the party whose consent was so caused had the means of discovering
The truth with ordinary diligence. Juliet had the means to discover the truth so she could have inspected
the road but she didn’t. In exception section 19(2) the contract is not voidable as Juliet cannot sue
Obama for misrepresentation when Juliet buys the land from Obama.

Third misrepresentation is Obama replied “RM 400,000. Don’t take my word; you can check my accounts
if you like.” Juliet laughed and said, “Oh, never mind, I’m just asking, you know I’m not going to plant
anything, it’s the land and the scenery I’m after.” So in this case, Juliet did not rely on the account. This
statement is proven in the case of Attwood v Small and it’s not misrepresentation. In addition, Juliet also
did not check the account of Obama. So this is not voidable contract. Juliet cannot sue Obama for
misrepresentation when Juliet buys the land from Obama. To add to her misery, she learns that part of
her plantation will be taken over by the government to make way for a new commercial hub and the
compensation offered to affected land owners is not adequate to cover for their loss. According to the
law, whether Obama under duty to disclose this to Juliet- This statement is proven in the case of Keates
v The Earl of Cadogan (1851) 10 CB 591 landlord no duty to disclose state of the property. In conclusion,
Obama no duty to tell Juliet about the plantation taken over as there is no duty to disclose. So Juliet
cannot sue Obama as the contract is valid.

CONCLUSION

Juliet cannot sue Obama because there is no voidable contract between them. There is no duty to
disclose. Juliet don’t have remedy.

• THE RULES ARE PROPERLY EXPLAINED AND SUPPPORTED BY THE RIGHT CASES
• THE ANALYSIS IS ORGANISED, ALMOST ALL POINTS ARE COVERED – EXPLAINED AND JUSTIFIED
• EASY TO READ THE ANSWER
• GOOD JOB! PLEASE KEEP UP THIS EXCELLENT WORK