Kepong Prospecting Ltd V Schmidt Case Summary

The malaysian case which applied the principle of past consideration is the case of.

Kepong prospecting ltd v schmidt case summary. Schmidt also helped in the subsequent formation of the company kepong prospecting ltd. Past consideration did constitute a valid consideration. A valuable consideration in the sense of the law may consist either in some right interest profit or benefit accruing to one party or some forbearance detriment loss or responsibility given suffered or undertaken by the other. On that material hashim j.

So schmidt was entitled to his claim on the amount. Kepong prospecting ltd v schmidt. Nowroji pudumjee siradar v the deccan bank ltd ilr 45 bom 1256 1258 air 1921 bom 69. Tan promise to schmidt a tribute of 1 for every iron produced and soled.

Kepong prospecting ltd s k jagatheesan ors v a e schmidt marjorie schmidt 1968 1 mlj 170. 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. Schmidt 1968 1 mlj 170 cont issue. In the year 1954 after the company formed schmidt was not party of the agreement not until in the year.

Contract law international agreements formation of contract. Whether services rendered after incorporation but before the agreement were insufficient to constitute a valid consideration even though they were clearly past. 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. In the year 1954 after the company formed schmidt was not party of the agreement not until in the year.

And the tribute is its sole asset. Past consideration is good consideration was illustrated in kepong prospecting ltd. 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 1968 ac 810. 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. 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. 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.

Tan promise to schmidt a tribute of 1 for every iron produced and soled. Subsequently tan set up a company called kepong prospecting ltd.