This document discusses pecuniary loss under Malaysian law. It outlines three categories of pecuniary loss - expenses incurred by victims, personal expenses of victims and their families, and business losses. However, business losses are generally not recoverable. Pecuniary loss in Malaysia includes expectation interest (loss of profits) and reliance interest (wasted expenditures). Expectation interest aims to put the plaintiff in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed, while reliance interest compensates for expenses incurred in reliance on the contract. There are exceptions where reliance interest cannot be claimed, such as when losses were due to terms agreed upon in the contract.

1. Pecuniary Loss
Group Members
1142700048 Privesh Paul Singh (Leader)
1142700437 Dashini Ravindran
1142700535 Tisha Puspanathan
1142701420 Baveniyah R. Jothi
1142701821 Nur Atifah bt Kamal

2. Three General Categories of
Pecuniary Loss
 Pecuniary loss incurred relieving the victim of expenses the victim
could have recovered from the person responsible for causing the
injuries;
 A victim may be in need of a nurse or to pay for medical and
transportation expenses or incur any number of expenses in
convalescence. A third party often takes up the responsibility to
nurse the victim or pay bills. These kinds of pecuniary loss are
ordinarily recoverable by the victim as recognised in the courts.
 Personal expenses or loss; and
 A family member wishing to provide the victim with care, comfort and
companionship might have to travel or miss work. Some expenses are
recoverable if they answer the victim’s needs, such as providing nursing
care.
 Business loss
 This involves those in a business relationship with a victim. They may also
suffer financial loss, directly or indirectly. A company or business that
depends upon the skills or experience of the victim may be unable to find a
replacement at any cost.

3. Business Loss
 The law is firmly against its recovery from the wrongdoer, largely for
pragmatic reasons.
 It is clear that problems will arise if injury to a financial relationship will
support a claim for because many kinds of financial interests may be
affected when a person is injured.
 The principles applied by the law in determining whether or not
damages should be awarded dictate that these kinds of loss should not
be recoverable. The reasons that are usually provided is that the losses
are unforeseeable, or too remote, for the law to insist that a person
responsible for injuring another provide compensation for them.
 While it is clear that business loss is not recoverable, it is also clear that
the kinds of loss involving payments made on behalf of the victim
should be. The third party who assumes the responsibility for an
expense that the victim otherwise would have
 (a) had to incur as a result of the injuries, and
 (b) been able to recover from the wrongdoer should not operate to limit
the wrongdoer’s responsibilities. It should be a matter of importance for
the law to see that the third party is reimbursed.
 A distinction must be drawn between a casual acquaintance and a
spouse, parent of the victim and the children of the victim.

4. Pecuniary Loss in Malaysian
Position
 Pecuniary loss is one of the damages categories where a
plaintiff can apply for remedy.
 In Malaysia, however, pecuniary loss is divided into:
 expectation interest; and
 reliance interest.
 Expectation interest is the loss of profit and claim on reliance
interest is known as, wasted expenditure.

5. Expectation Interest
 The basis on granting this remedy is meant to put the plaintiff in the position that he will
be in if the contract was performed as promise. This would lead to monetary gain where
the plaintiff had expected if there was no breach of contract. Therefore, this will enable
the plaintiff or the claimant to recover the damages in full respect from the loss of profit
and gains of which they had been deprived from the contract earlier.
 The expectation loss may be classified in two ways:
 Diminution in value; and
 Cost of cure.
 Diminution in value means the difference in value between the performances gained
and what did he want in the contract.
 In Win Sin Sdn Bhd V Lembaga Penduduk Dan Pembangunan Negara, the plaintiff, a
bakery owner, need an extra place to expand the existing premises. The defendant was
the owner of 2 shop lost, which are Lot 9 and 10.
 On the 8th of August 1992, the defendant offered Lot 9 and plaintiff agreed to pay the
rental fee RM 3,000.
 However, on the 12th September 1992, defendants withdrew his offer and exchange it
with Lot 7.
 It ended up the defendant premises had been occupied by third party where at this
point, the plaintiff had suffered pecuniary loss.
 The plaintiff claim damages under section 74 of Contract Act 1950 due to the failure on
giving a vacant lot of the shop where the party had intended in expanding the premises.
Therefore, the judge held that when any business is making a contract, it is for the
benefit of the business itself and any delay would cause loss or damage in nature.
 As conclusion, once the defendant had failed to perform the contract, the plaintiff may
sue for breach and repudiate the contract. The court then awarded the plaintiff damages
for loss of profit within the on hold time between the overseas supplier and the vacancy
of the premises.

6. Reliance Interest
 This is the second part of remedy where the plaintiff is granted the position in the
contract if it was performed, where the money compensation can do.
 In wasted expenditure, it is an expense that the plaintiff had incurred in order to
perform the contract that had been rendered on due to the breach.
 The objective on having this remedy is in the reliance with the other party to fulfill
their obligation as one party had already suffered harm and the amount being
charge is a compensate to the parties affected.
 In the part of remedy, there are two situations where the party any claim for
reliance interest.
 First is when an innocent party in the breach of contract did not incur any loss of
profit but suffered expenditure expenses in accordance of the contract.
 Second, when the plaintiff incurred lost of profit, he entered into difficulty to
gained and proving the amount of profit that they would have acquire if the
contract had been carried out.
 This can be seen in the case of The Owner Of The Cargo Lately Laden On Board
The Ship or Vessels MV ‘Viva Ocean” V The Owner or Demise Characters of The
Ship or Vessel MV ‘Viva’ where the defendant is the owner of the MV Viva Ocean
and plaintiff is the owner of the cargo where the contract said that, the ship need
to ship 5500 metric ton of ammonium sulphate. However, upon arrived, the cargo
had damaged due to the wattage by the sea water. The plaintiff claim that the
defendant is the one who responsible on the direct damage to the cargo and
claim for loss. As a result, this had lead to breach their duty to maintain the goods
arrive safely. Defendant claim that the damage is the act of god and perils of the
sea but court held that the defendant had failed to fulfill the requirement in the
contract and can no longer make any defense.

7. Exception to the General Rule of
Reliance Interest
 There are two circumstances of which the general rule of reliance interest can be used.
 First, when the innocent party to a contract has not suffered any loss of profit but has incurred
expenditure in reliance of the contract.
 Second, when the innocent party has suffered from loss of profit and has difficulties in determining
the amount of profit that he would have acquired if the contract was performed
 However, there is an exception to the general rule of reliance interest. The innocent
party, in order to protect his reliance loss, cannot choose to recover wasted expenditure.
 This is due to the terms stipulated in the contract made between the plaintiff and
defendant whereby both of the parties agreed that the plaintiff might suffer some
downsides out of the contract itself.
 This is illustrated in the case of C&P Haulage Co Ltd v Middleton [1983] EWCA Civ 5.
George Middleton, the plaintiff had a renewable licence to occupy premises for six
months at a time. He used it for his car repair business. In the contract made, it was
expressly stipulated that any equipment installed in the garage becomes the property of
the garage owner. Despite knowing this, the plaintiff spent some money to improve the
garage. C&P Haulage Co Ltd, the defendant ejected him for breach of contract. The
plaintiff argued he should be entitled to damages for the cost of the improvements he
had made. However, the plaintiff’s action to recover for damages had failed because he
had not suffered any losses from the breach since he would be in the similar position if
the contract had been lawfully terminated. The loss suffered by plaintiff here was due to
the clause that has been agreed upon in the contract made by both the parties. The
plaintiff is constrained to use the principle of reliance interest to claim for reliance loss to
enable him to escape a bad bargain which he himself had agreed upon.

8. Conclusion
 The Malaysian cases do follow the principle of election that have been
established in the common law from the beginning itself.
 This principle was first taken from the case of Cullinane v British Rema
Manufacturing Co Ltd. After that, it was followed in the case of Anglia Television
Ltd. V Reed where the famous sentence by Lord Denning stated that: it seems
that a plaintiff has an election where he can either claim for his loss of profit; or for
his wasted expenditure. But he must elect between them. He cannot claim both. If
he has not suffered any loss of profits, or if he cannot prove what his profits would
have been, he can claim in the alternative the expenditure which has been thrown
away, that is, wasted, by reason of the breach.
 This principle have been used a couple of times by the Courts in deciding some
cases which have been mentioned previously. Furthermore an exception is also
present where reliance interest cannot be claimed due to bad a bargain.
 In a nutshell, the Malaysian position as favours to the claimant’s election is just as
comparable as in the common law position. It is founded on the principle which is
laid down, hence the Court will study the facts of the case comprehensively first
before going forward with its decision