H.A. Berney v. Tronoh Mines Limited (1949) 15, M.L.J, 4 Facts
In this case, the plaintiff sued for breach of contract of service. On the invasion of Malaya by the Japanese forces, the European staff of the defendant company was evacuated from Tronoh, Tanjong Tuallang and other places but the plaintiff elected to remain at Tanjong Tuallang. The defendants contended that consequent on the Japanese occupation of Perak, the contract of employment between them and the plaintiff was discharged by frustration. Held, that the invasion of Malaya by the Japanese frustrated the performance of the contract and therefore there was no breach of contract by the defendants. Issues
1. Whether the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant exist? 2. Whether the event of invasion of Malaya by Japanese forces had discharged both parties from their contractual contra ctual liabilities? 3. Whether the breach of contract really occurs? 4. Whether the plaintiff entitled for the salary claimed? 5. Whether the action of European staff that left Tronoh and Tanjong Tuallang constitute a breach of contract? Holding:
1. Yes. The defendant said that the plaintiff had been employed by the company on a monthly agreement at the salary stated,$345 2. Yes. A contract which is discharged by on the ground of frustration is brought to an end automatically. 3. No. The contract was discharged disch arged by frustration frustrati on and thus it becomes b ecomes void and comes co mes to an end. 4. No. as the t he month of December’s service s ervice had not been completed; complet ed; no wages wa ges were due in respect of that month. 5. No. All European staff received orders to evacuate the Mines Department including the plaintiff but he offered himself to remain at Tanjong Tuallang.
The court held that, the invasion of Malaya by the Japanese frustrated the performance of the contract and therefore, there was no breach of contract by the defendant. Principles
a) Based on distinct principle The general rule Discharge of Contract is, contracts may be discharged by either performance, frustration or by breach. In this case, the invasion of Malaya by Japanese forces frustrated the contract. b) Based on a provision According to section 57(2) of the Contract Act, “A contract to do an act which, after
the contract is made, become impossible, or by reason of some event which the promisor could not prevent, unlawful, becomes void when the act becomes impossible or unlawful.”
c) Based on case The principle of this case was referred from the case of Denny, Mott and Dickson, Ltd v. James B. Fraser & Co. Ltd, where the lord Wright in his judgement said that, where there is frustration, dissolution of a contract occurs automatically. In Hijri Mulji’s case, the Lord Wright said, “ When frustration occurs, it is automatic, and that its legal
effect depends not on the intention of the parties or occurrence in such circumstances as to show it to be inconsistent with the further prosecution of the adventure”. The
same goes to the discussed case, H.A Berney v. Tronoh Mines,
