The Doctrine of Unconscionability in Malaysia: Undue Influence

Equity is that part in the law that moderates the harshness of common law and statute and because of this persons seeking assistance from an unconscionable transaction have been able to find relief through equity. Although equity only appears in the most repugnant of situations, it comes as in disbelief, that the courts would consider a newer level of standard for unconscionability. The following paper considers the effect of the statement made and the ramifications of the statement through equity.

Sanctions are only appealed to in the event that there is a breach. It therefore follows that the opinion of Hart is that various form of law cannot be explained in a single expression as orders backed with threats of sanction. Thus, in contradiction with Austin’s viewpoint, Hart formulated a dual system which contains two types of rules, primary rules (duty-imposing) and secondary rules (power-conferring). Primary rules are generally duty-imposing, which embodies non-optional rules of obligation. It often concerned with standard of behavior as requirement to do or to abstain from performing an act. On the other hand, secondary rules are ancillary to primary rules the former conferring right to introduce, to vary the primary rules and to determine the mode in which their violation could be determined (judicial process). Such secondary rules are rather regulatory or facilitative than coercive in nature. In short, Austin’s catch all theory of seeing law as command back with sanction leave no room for right, privileges given to subject of Sovereignty which does not constitute non optional

Philosophers such as Ronald Dworkin and H.L.A. Hart have referred to discretion as “the hole in the doughnut” (doughnut theory of discretion) and “where the law runs out” (natural law theory). In perspective,

(2) Tamanaha, Brian. 2008. “Law”, Oxford International Encyclopedia of Legal History, St. John's Legal Studies Research Paper No. 08-0095. Link in Course Readings and Available online: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1082436&rec=1&srcabs=1012051

These extreme cases of judicial misconduct are rare; but when they happen they force us to think critically about our judicial system and the important role it plays in our society. When it comes to preventing abuses

It is agreed by many, if not all, that the compensatory principle is the ruling principle in breach of contract

2. Mohamed Haneef Case. 2014. Mohamed Haneef Case. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/lawcouncil/ [Accessed 21 August 2014].

This case dealt with crucial points in the political history and can be listed as follows:-

Held: At least in relation to insurance policies, and almost certainly in relation to contract of indemnity generally, where the evidence is that third parties were in the contemplation of the principal, then those third parties can enforce the contract. That was the

The matter was presented to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) and AAT has different views on this matter and AAT considered the historical Cases and

In its Bato Star judgment, the Constitutional Court referred to the interpretive approach followed in the Jaga v Dönges, a notorious case from the 1950s. In this essay, I argue that the recent comments by the Constitutional Court about the case clearly show that the Jaga judgment is no longer relevant to the interpretation of statutes after the democratic transformation.

A bench of the Supreme Court has in Bankura Municipality v. Lalji Raja and Sons[2] held that:

It should be noted however that the classical school of thought has had an enduring influence as many legal systems are built on some of its key precepts. The idea of intent for example, emphasizes the importance of the state of mind of the individual and their capacity for making choices. Notions of proportionality in relation to punishment are

In earlier days, agreement was built on a very classic and simple basis: it is concluded at the moment that the acceptance of an offer takes place and that is all. In consequence, equal parties were non-existent and stronger parties had the possibility to impose unfair and domineering conditions upon those who were weak and vulnerable. It is in this context that both legislations and courts agreed that State action was indispensable to ensure fairness among individual parties, in an era where the exercise of law of freedom were extremely restricted.

The first aspect of similarity between the Malaysian and Japanese moral education is the subject is taught as an independent subject. The teaching period for Malaysian moral education is allocated in the school timetable. It is one of the core subjects taught to non-Muslim students in all primary and secondary schools in Malaysia. In a week, three teaching periods of forty minutes each are allotted for the subject (World Data on Education, 2011). Similarly, following France which teaches moral education as a separate subject, Japanese moral education was established as special hour in the official Course of Study (World Data on Education, 2011). Therefore, as a teaching subject in school, like any other subject lessons, the Japanese moral education develops, incorporates and enhances its own instruction. Classified as general studies rather than academic study, it is taught once a week in elementary and lower secondary schools, allowing Japanese students from the first grade to the ninth grade to have 35 lesson hours of moral education in a regular school year (Bolton, 2015).