1. PENGECUALIAN TANGGUNGJAWAB
-KEMUNGKIRAN ASASI / FUNDAMENTAL BREACH-
•Pada satu ketika, beberapa mahkamah Inggeris,
khususnya Court of Appeal, berpendapat bahawa
sesetengah perlanggaran begitu serius sehinggakan
mana-mana fasal pengecualian, apa bentuk
sekalipun tidak dapat merangkumi perlanggaran
tersebut. Justeru itu Defendan akan dianggap
masih bertanggungan dan fasal pengecualian
dianggap tidak efektif.
•Prinsip ini dikenali sebagai doktrin kemungkiran
asasi (doctrine of fundamental breach).
1
2. -KEMUNGKIRAN ASASI / FUNDAMENTAL BREACH-
•Doktrin ini boleh wujud dlm 2 bentuk :
A. Terdapat beberapa terma dlm sesebuah kontrak
yang begitu penting kpd kontrak tersebut. Dgn itu
tidak ada satu fasal pengecualianpun yg boleh
mengecualikan liabiliti jika terma penting ini
dilanggar oleh Defendan.
Cth : Kontrak bagi penjualan buah epal tetapi yg
dibekalkan ialah buah rambutan.
•Dalam bentuk ini, doktrin ini juga dikenali sebagai
perlanggaran terma asasi (breach of fundamental
term)
2
3. -KEMUNGKIRAN ASASI / FUNDAMENTAL
BREACH-
•B. Bentuk kedua doktrin perlanggaran asasi ini
berbeza dgn perlanggaran terma asasi. Bentuk ini
melihat bukan kpd terma yg telah dilanggar tetapi
melihat kpd kesan keseluruhannya perlanggaran
itu kpd kontrak; jika perlanggaran itu begitu
serius bagi kontrak tersebut, perlanggaran
Defendan akan dianggap sebagai perlanggaran
asasi.
Cth.: Pembelian kereta, tetapi apabila kereta
dihantar, enjinnya telah rosak dgn teruknya
sehinggakan tidak boleh dipandu.
3
4. -KEMUNGKIRAN ASASI / FUNDAMENTAL BREACH-
•Doktrin yg mengatakan bahawa apabila
berlakunya kemungkiran asasi (fundamanetal
breach), fasal pengecualian tidak akan terpakai
telah ditolak oleh House of Lords dlm kes:
SUISSE ATLANTIQUE SOCIETE d’ARMAMENTE SA v.
ROTTERDAMSCHE KOLEN CENTRALE (1967)
Prinsip dlm kes ini kemudiannya telah disahkan
oleh kes utama PHOTO PRODUCTION LTD v.
SECURICOR TRANSPORT LTD (1980).
4
5. SUISSE ATLANTIQUE SOCIETE d’ARMAMENTE SA v.
ROTTERDAMSCHE KOLEN CENTRALE (1967)
•Appellant chartered to the Respondent the m.v.
Silvretta for a period of 2 years. It was agreed that,
in the event of delays in loading or unloading the
vessel, R would pay A $1000 a day by way of
demurrage. Lengthy delays occurred. A sued R for
damages exceeding the stipulated sum. A argued
that R’s breach was so serious that the clause should
not apply and that they should be able to recover
the full amount of their losses.
•H/L : There is no rule of law that an exemption
clause is nullified by a fundamental breach of
contract or breach of a fundamental term.
5
6. SUISSE ATLANTIQUE SOCIETE d’ARMAMENTE SA v.
ROTTERDAMSCHE KOLEN CENTRALE (1967)
• Viscount Dilhorne :
• “In my view, it is not right to say that the law prohibits and nullifies
a clause exempting or limiting liability for a fundamental breach or
breach of a fundamental term. Such a rule of law would involve a
restriction on freedom of contract …”
6
7. PHOTO PRODUCTION LTD v. SECURICOR
TRANSPORT LTD (1980)
• P owned a factory, and engaged D to provide security services,
including a night patrol. Unfortunately, one of the guards employed
by D to carry out these duties, started a fire deliberately on P’s
premises which got out of control, and destroyed the entire factory.
D denied liability on the basis of exemption clause in their contract
which excluded D’s liability for injurious act or defaults by
employees.
7
8. PHOTO PRODUCTION LTD v. SECURICOR TRANSPORT
LTD (1980) House of Lords
•There was no rule of law that a fundamental breach
of contract prevented an exclusion clause from being
effective.
•In deciding whether an exclusion clause is to be
applied, the question is one of construction of the
contract as a whole. On its true construction, the
exemption clause relied by D was clear and
unambiguous and covered the deliberate act of the
employee. D were therefore protected by the
exemption clause.
• This case has been applied in MITCHELL (GEORGE)
(CHESTERHALL) LTD v. FINNEY LOCK SEEDS LTD [1983].
8
12. -KECUAIAN-
12
12
HOLLIER v. RAMBLER MOTORS [1972]
• (Case on previous dealings-preceding 5 years-P sent his other cars 3 or 4 times
to D’s garage.) P’s car was damaged in a fire caused by D’s negligence. Clause -
‘Co. is not responsible for damage caused by fire to customers’ cars on the
properties’.
–COURT OF APPEAL : Even if it were
incorporated, the clause would not be
effective to exclude liability for D’s
negligence. Where a type of damage could
have many cause, a party who wishes to
exclude liability for that type of damage
caused by his negligence must use plain
language to do so.
13. -KECUAIAN-
13
13
• Jika fasal pengecualian secara jelasnya
mengecualikan D drp kecuaian dirinya atau
pekerjanya, fasal itu boleh digunakan oleh D utk
mengelak liabiliti.
RUTTER v. PALMER [1922]
• P mempunyai sebuah kereta Le Gui. P menyuruh D,
seorang peniaga kereta utk menjual kereta Le Gui
itu bagi pihaknya. Perjanjian antara P dan D
mengandungi satu fasal berbunyi; ‘Customers’ cars
are driven by your (D’s) staff at customers’ sole
risk.’ Semasa berada dlm simpanan pemandu D, yg
sedang menunjukkan kereta tersebut kpd seorang
pembeli, kereta itu mengalami kerosakan
disebabkan kecuaian pemandu D.
14. RUTTER v. PALMER [1922]
14
14
COURT OF APPEAL :
• D was protected by
the exclusion clause
and need not pay for
the damage. Fasal
tersebut telah
meletakkan risiko
kecuaian ke atas P dan
dengan itu tuntutan P
gagal.
15. SEKAWAN GUARDS SDN BHD v. THONG GUAN
SDN BHD [1995]
15
15
• Melalui satu kontrak bertulis, Sekawan bersetuju utk memberikan
perkhidmatan keselamatan di premis Thong Guan. Suatu kecurian telah
berlaku pada premis tersebut, menyebabkan kehilangan barangan Thong
Guan. Thong Guan telah mendakwa Sekawan pecah kontrak dan, secara
alternatif, kecuaian. Sekawan bergantung pada suatu fasal pengecualian dlm
kontrak yg memperuntukkan bahawa ia tidak akan bertanggungjawab ke atas
apa-apa kerugian yg dialami oleh Thong Guan melainkan kerugian itu
diakibatkan oleh kecuaian pekerja Sekawan. Sekawan menegaskan bahawa
kecurian itu pada hakikatnya telah disebabkan oleh kecuaian pengawal Thong
Guan sendiri yg tidak berada di premis tersebut pada malam berkenaan
sungguhpun bertugas.
16. 16
16
SEKAWAN GUARDS SDN BHD v. THONG GUAN
SDN BHD [1995]
WAN ADNAN J.
• 1. Isu fasal pengecualian dan kecuaian pekerja
Thong Guan tidak dikemukakan dlm pernyataan
pembelaan Sekawan, dgn itu mahkamah
mengabaikan kedua-dua isu ini.
• 2. Namun kedudukan pengawal Thong Guan
tidak boleh dlm apa cara sekalipun memberi
kesan ke atas tanggungjawab kontraktual
Sekawan terhadap Thong Guan. Tidak wujudnya
satu obligasi di pihak Thong Guan utk
menyediakan seorang pengawal lain.
17. • Chin Hooi Chan v. Comprehensive Auto Restoration Service Sdn Bhd &
Anor [1995] 2 MLJ 100 - court again took a very strict interpretation of
these type of clauses in cases involving damage caused by negligence
• Siti Norma Yaakob J
“It is settled law that an exemption clause however wide and general
does not exonerate the respondents from the burden of proving that the
damage caused to the car were not due to their negligence and
misconduct. They must show that they had exercised due diligence and
care in the handling of the car.”
17
18. Premier Hotel Sdn Bhd v. Tang Ling Seng
[1995] 4 MLJ 229
• Elizabeth Chapmen JC (Kuching High Court)
“General words of exclusion clauses would not ordinarily protect a
contracting party from liability for negligence. To protect him from liability
for negligence, the words used must be sufficiently clear, usually either by
referring expressly to negligence or by using some such expression as
‘howsoever caused’.”
18
19. 19
19
PLEASE READ :
• TAVEECHAI MARINE [1995] (which is
based on the decision of the Privy Council
in SZE HAI TONG BANK V. RAMBLER CYCLE
CO [1959]).
• Ian Chin J. in TAVEECHAI MARINE stated
that the contract made between the
parties cannot be interpreted so widely as
to exclude the liability of the defendant
from his own fault.
