Kepong Prospecting Ltd V Schmidt 1968 Ac 810

T agreed with schmidt in writing that in consideration for schmidt s assistance to obtain a permit and start mining operations t would pay schmidt 1 of the price that all ore from the land was sold at.

Kepong prospecting ltd v schmidt 1968 ac 810. Schmidt 1968 1 mlj 170 which is a case on appeal from malaysia. Kepong prospecting ltd v schmidt 1968 ac 810. This was the first. Thus while this rule of consideration is distinct and separate from the doctrine of privity as upheld in kepong prospecting ltd v schmidt 1968 ac 810 it yields the same result so as to be closely connected.

1968 ac 810 pc. Contract law international agreements formation of contract. This was illustrated in the case of kepong prospecting ltd v schmidt 1968. A contract without consideration is voidable.

3 kepong prospecting ltd v schmidt 1968 mlj 170 a schmidt a consulting engineer assisted in obtaining a permit for iron ore in the johor state. Salim may be able to successfully claim the promise made by the company. Schmidt also helped in the subsequent formation of the company kepong prospecting ltd. Schmidt also assisted tan in the setting up of kepong prospecting ltd.

The case of kepong prospecting ltd v a e. Responding to an argument by counsel that the doctrine does not apply in malaysia lord wilberforce categorically said. 28 dunlop n 4. In the year 195 4 after the company was formed an agreement was entered into between the company and tan whereby the company took over the obligations to pay schmidt 1 of all ore that might be produced and sold.

With an appeal case from malaysia in kepong prospecting ltd v schmidt 27. A consideration is executed when a promise is made in exchange for the performance of an act. The principle that only the parties are entitled to sue or be sued upon it is known as the privity of contract. This is evident from the decision of the privy council in kepong prospecting ltd ors v.

Subsequently tan set up a company called kepong prospecting ltd. A consideration given in the past is valid consideration. Tan promised schmidt a tribute of 1 of the sales of all the iron ore produced and sold. It lies at the heart of the difference between rights under contract which are in personam and proprietary rights which are in rem.

Schmidt marjorie schmidt 1968 1 mlj 170 laid down the principle that.