Kepong Prospecting Ltd V Schmidt 1968 Ac 810

The case of kepong prospecting ltd v a e.

Kepong prospecting ltd v schmidt 1968 ac 810. 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. The principle that only the parties are entitled to sue or be sued upon it is known as the privity of contract. Schmidt 1968 1 mlj 170 which is a case on appeal from malaysia.

1968 ac 810 pc. Kepong prospecting ltd v schmidt 1968 ac 810. Responding to an argument by counsel that the doctrine does not apply in malaysia lord wilberforce categorically said. A consideration given in the past is valid consideration.

Subsequently tan set up a company called kepong prospecting ltd. Looking after alan s son is good consideration for alan s promise. This was the first. Tan promised schmidt a tribute of 1 of the sales of all the iron ore produced and sold.

Schmidt also assisted tan in the setting up of kepong prospecting ltd. Schmidt also helped in the subsequent formation of the company kepong prospecting ltd. It lies at the heart of the difference between rights under contract which are in personam and proprietary rights which are in rem. Contract law international agreements formation of contract.

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. Kepong prospecting ltd v schmidt 1968 mlj 170 south east asia insurance bhd v nasir ibrahim 1992 2 mlj 355 wotherspoon co ltd v henry agency house 1962 mlj 86 leong huat sawmill pte ltd v lee man see 1985 1 mlj 47. A consideration is executed when a promise is made in exchange for the performance of an act. 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.

A contract without consideration is voidable. With an appeal case from malaysia in kepong prospecting ltd v schmidt 27. 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.