COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
KEJURUTERAAN BINTAI KINDENKO SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
NAM FATT CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD & ANOR – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. evolving doctrine of unconscionability in law (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. case example illustrating unconscionability (Para 6) |
| 3. background facts of the case (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. background and parties involved in contract (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 5. dispute and parties' arguments established (Para 26 , 27) |
| 6. appellant's arguments against performance bond calls (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 7. court's reflections on legal principles (Para 37 , 38) |
| 8. criteria and definition of unconscionability (Para 40 , 41 , 42) |
[1] I am in full agreement with my learned brother Ramly Ali, JCA in his judgment which have coherently set out the facts of this appeal and the rationale which is applicable therein.
[2] The concept of unconscionability has steadily grown in stature and has had firm footholds in other jurisdictions.
[3] In the past, judicial pronouncements went the way of fraud as being the only ground, in seeking an injunction to restrain a call on a performance bond. However recent judicial pronouncements have confirmed that unconscionability has a place in such circumstances, as an additional ground.
[4] In my view, consonant with the principle as laid down by my le
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.