Tan Hee Juan v Teh Boon Keat (1934)

By poporikun98 | Updated: June 9, 2024, 2:02 p.m.

Slideshow Video

SHARE THE AWESOMENESS

Education

create your own animated videos for free

_abc cc

* Powtoon is not liable for any 3rd party content used. It is the responsibility of each user to comply with 3rd party copyright laws.

Embed code

Select a size, the embed code changes based on your selection.

_abc Powtoon Transcript

HELLO!
WELCOME TO MY PRESENTATION
BEFORE I START
I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE MYSELF
FBS 10103 COMMERCIAL LAW
NAME: MUHAMAD ASRAF BIN BAHARRUDIN

MATRIC NUMBER: 049567

FACULTY: FACULTY OF BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT

COURSE: BACHELOR OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION      (RISK MANAGEMENT AND TAKAFUL)
TAN HEE JUAN v  TEH BOON KEAT (1934)
CASE LAW
TAN HEE JUAN (PLAINTIFF)
TEH BOON KEAT (DEFENDENT)
Parties
Contracting
When they met, Tan Hee Juan has shown his land to Teh Boon Keat
One day, Teh Boon Keat (defendant) met Tan Hee Juan (plaintiff) who wanted to sell him land
Teh Boon Keat took a while to check the land. After that, he had decided to buy the land from Tan Hee Juan
Hi!
Hi!
Here is my land. Feel free to check it out.
Okay, thanks.
A Few Moments Later
Okay.
Hey, I decided to buy this land from you.
Then, the Two of them Entered a contract of transferring the land
 Teh Boon Keat will   pay some money to Tan Hee Juan in exchange of the land.
and an agreement was made
CASE FACTS
Tan Hee Juan (plaintiff) has transferred his land to Teh Boon Keat (defendent) and after that, the defendent has paid the price for the land
The transfer were witnessed and subsequently registered
The plaintiff later, by his representatives, applied to the court for an order setting aside the transfer and for incidental relief
It is claimed that the above said, agreement should be considered as void since he was a minor at the time he transferred the land.
CASE ISSUES
Whether the agreement was void
Whether the plaintiff has to pay back the money he received from defendent
CASE DECISION
COURT HELD
The plaintiff succeeds in his claimed. And the Court ruled that the transaction were void and ordered restoration of the land to the plaintiff. The plaintiff also have the advantage of not returning the money's received 
REASON FOR DECISION
The person who enters into the contract must have full capacity in terms of age and mind
Based on Section 11 of the Contracts Act 1950, "every person is competent to contract who is age of majority, sound mind and not disqualified from contracting"
It's mean, the person who has not reached the age of majority cannot make a valid contract
In this case, Tan Hee Juan is a minor and according to general rule, contract entered by a minor is void.
And that is the reason why the Court declared the transfer and the contract is void
CONCLUSION
It can be concluded that any agreement in which minor is party to it shall be declared null and void because such agreement is no agreement in the eyes of law
THANK YOU
TILL WE MEET AGAIN!

Tan Hee Juan v Teh Boon Keat (1934)

Copy this link to share with friends and colleagues:

WELCOME TO POWTOON!