Kepong Prospecting Ltd V Schmidt Case Summary

Tan promise to schmidt a tribute of 1 for every iron produced and soled.

Kepong prospecting ltd v schmidt case summary. On that material hashim j. Subsequently tan set up a company called kepong prospecting ltd. 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. Nowroji pudumjee siradar v the deccan bank ltd ilr 45 bom 1256 1258 air 1921 bom 69.

Defined under section 15 as committing or threatening to commit any act forbidden by the penal code or the unlawful detaining or threatening to detain any property to the prejudice of any person. Contract law international agreements formation of contract. In the year 1954 after the company formed schmidt was not party of the agreement not until in the year. Jagatheesan ors v.

Came to the following conclusion a defendant has been receiving tribute from kepong mines ltd. So schmidt was entitled to his claim on the amount. S a consultant engineer has assisted another in obtaining a prospecting permit for mining iron ore he helped in the subsequent formation of kepong prospecting ltd and was appointed as its md. Page 3 of 4 kepong prospecting ltd v schmidt.

Kepong prospecting ltd v schmidt. In the year 1954 after the company formed schmidt was not party of the agreement not until in the year. Kepong prospecting ltd s k jagatheesan ors v a e schmidt marjorie schmidt 1968 1 mlj 170. Schmidt marjorie schmidt 1968 1 mlj 170 schmidt a consulting engineer had assisted another in obtaining a prospecting permit for mining iron ore in the state of johore.

Tan promise to schmidt a tribute of 1 for every iron produced and soled. The malaysian case which applied the principle of past consideration is the case of. Whether services rendered after incorporation but before the agreement were insufficient to constitute a valid consideration even though they were clearly past. Kepong prospecting ltd v schmidt 1968 ac 810.

Past consideration is good consideration was illustrated in kepong prospecting ltd. In malaysia the good examples of case for past consideration are kepong prospecting v schmidt schmidt a consulting engineering assisted tan to obtain iron ore permit. And the tribute is its sole asset. In malaysia the good examples of case for past consideration are kepong prospecting v schmidt schmidt a consulting engineering assisted tan to obtain iron ore permit.

Past consideration did constitute a valid consideration. Schmidt 1968 1 mlj 170 cont issue.