Breach categories which are unliquidated and liquidated damages.When the

Breach of contract is meant failure to keep the
promises or agreements of a contract.Breach of contract is a legal cause of
action in which a binding agreement is not honored by one or another more of
the parties.The three most important of remedies available for breach of
contract includes damages, specific performance and injunction.

Damages mean losses or costs incurred due to another
wrongful act.Damages are granted to a party as compensation for the damage,
loss or injury he or she suffered through the breach of contract.The two main
purpose of damages are to place the party who has suffered the loss as a result
of breach as nearly as possible in same position as he or she would have been
in if the breach has not occurred and it is not intended as a punishment for
the party who failed to perform obligation under the contract.Damage
can be classified into two categories which are unliquidated and liquidated damages.When
the plaintiff is in an action sued for predetermined and inelasic sum of money
then he or she is claiming for liquidated damages whereas if he or she is
seeking to recover such an amount as the court,in its discretion,is at liberty
to award then he or she is claiming for an unliquidated damages.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

to the Section 74 of Contract Act states that when a contract have been
broken,the party who suffers by the breach is entitled to receive, from the
party who has broken the contract, compensation for any loss or damages caused
to him.Based on the cases of Kebatasan Timber Extraction Co. v. Chong Fah Sing
1969 states that the appellant had contracted to supply the timber to
respondent to be delivered at the side of the sawmill to be erected by the
respondent. The timber was just delivered in three lots but the second lot of
198 logs and 4 of the 2 logs in third were not delivered to sawmill but it were
dumped at a distance of more than 500 feet from sawmill.This cases was held
where it is the duty of the respondents who have to take reasonable steps to
mitigate the damage.There was no need for the respondent to buy the logs from
elsewhere as the logs were lying a few hundred feet away from sawmill and all
that was required was the additional expenses up to RM 1000 for hauling them up
to sawmill..In the recent cases of Heng Hang Khim v Sineo Enterprise Sdn Bhd ,
the High Court held where the defendant failed to deliver the vacant possession
of a condominium unit before the 36-month period as stipulated in purchase and
sale agreement, the plaintiff was entitled to a refund of sum paid as part of
purchase payment which was compensation for loss or damage caused by contract

that, liquidated damages was according to Section 75 of Contract Act, plaintiff
is only allowed to recover a reasonable sum of breach of contract and the
amount of the damage recoverable cannot exceed the sum that have been
stipulated in contract.This may refer to the cases of Hadley v. Baxendale (
1854) has stated that the plaintiff, Hadley owned and operate a mill. Hadley
engaged Baxendale who acts as defendant to transport the crankshaft to W.Joyce
& Co in order to have a new part created with the same pattern of the
broken part.The mill machinery could not be operated until the new shaft was
delivered because the defendant did not informed earlier to plaintiff of this
exceptional circumstance.Hence, mill have to remain closed longer than expected
due to the delayed delivered for an unreasonable time,and the plaintiffs sued
to Baxendale for recover the damages.In the recent cases of Johor Coastal Development Sdn Bhd v. Constrajaya
Sdn Bhd 2009, an contract for two parties entered into two sale and purchase
agreements which containing identical terms, where the respondent purchase a
land from appellant with an obligation to construct and complete the project
within three years from date of agreements, the respondents only paid 12% of
initial payment but failed to pay the rest of the balance and further abandoned
the project three years after date of agreements.Hence, the appellant end the
agreements and forfeit all monies paid by respondents.The respondents was then
commenced this action at High Court to recover the amount forfeited by
Appellant on the ground that this was a penalty and it is unenforceable by
virtue of Section 75 of Contract Act.But in the mind of Appellant, he thought
that this is an reasonable compensation and argued that both parties had an
mutual agreements contracted out of Section 75 of Contract Act. This cases was
then leaved to the decision of minority that Appellant was entitled to receive
the reasonable compensation from the respondent but not exceeding the amount of
the sum which had named in agreements because the word in Section 75  ‘whether or not actual damage is proved to
have been caused thereby’ must be a restricted construction.Hence, the party
who claims for damages for breach of contract must be produce reasonable

Moreover, damages also classified into specific performance
which is a discretionary remedy under Specific Relief Act 1950 According to the
S.20 (1)(a) states that discretion was not to decree specific performance where
damages will provide an adequate remedy.S.20(1)(c)states specific performance
will be refused where terms of contract are uncertain.S.21 of Specific
Performance 1950 stated that court has discretion to refuse where the granting
of it would cause hardship to defendant and the High Court has discretionary
power to award the decree of specific performance.S12(2) of SRA 1950 stated
that it must be granted in respect of agreements relating to land transactions
where there is presumption that the breach of contract to transfer immovable
property cannot be adequate relieved by compensation in money.

Other than that, damages also includes injunctions.An
injunctions is a discretionary court order unlike specific performance. It is a
court order restraining a party from breaking their contract or from committing
a wrongful act and will not be awarded if damages are an adequate remedy.An
injunction may be interlocutory where it freezes the status quo between the
parties until the dispute can be heard by court, mandatory is to require a
person to perform some contractual obligation and prohibitory or sometimes
called temporary injunction was preventing the breach of contract. An example
of mandatory injunction was shown in Neoh Siew Eng & Anor v Too Cheng Kwang
which the court issued an injunction,ordered the defendant of plaintiff to
properly repair all the communication pipes and comply with all the regulations
of water department so that water supply of Waterworks Department will not be

the cases which between Xun
Ming and Anieta was considered as damages. Xun Ming was an interior
decorator.She contracted with Murugan that she able to re-do the design for his
restaurant and this work will be completed by the middle of the January of
2017. At the middle of December 2016, Xun Ming had not yet begun work but she
was discovered on similar job for Jasolyn’s restaurant.Then,Murugan cancelled
the contract with Xun Ming as he realize that Xun Ming was unable to complete
this work by the middle of January.After that, Murugan asked Anieta to take
over of the work. At the same time, Xun Ming decided by herself to abandon the
work on Jasolyn’s restaurant which had in process and in order to undertake the
work for Murugan which can earn more money.Murugan was out on vacation but his
workers allowed Xun Ming and her workers do the interior work.After three days
after work, vandals started a fire and destroyed Murugan’s restaurant, cause
Anieta and her workers unable to begin work.Due to this scenario, Xun Ming are
unable to claim the compensation from Murugan. Next, Xun Ming are started the
work without the permission of Murugan. As the S.74 of Contract Act states that
compensation also can be claimed from the party who broken the contract. But,
Murugan had canceled the contract with Xun Ming before he hired Anieta for the
interior decoration work in his restaurant.Hence,Xun Ming cannot claim the
compensation from Murugan. On the other hand, Anieta has right to claim the
compensation from Murugan because Anieta cannot begun work due to Xun Ming had
started the work and the fire had destroyed the restaurant. Anieta had loss her
profits during this period, she supposed to take over of other project from
other parties to earn profit. Hence, Anieta can claim the compensation from

conclusion, the contract between Xun Ming and Murugan was discharged by breach
and the contract between Anita and Murugan is valid.