Baru-baru ini kita dikejutkan dengan satu berita bahawa sebuah NGO membuat tawaran kepada masyarakat umum bahawa sesiapa yang melempang seorang ahli politik berbangsa Cina ini akan dibayar wang sebanyak RM1200. Secara asasnya, berdasarkan kepada satu kes English Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] EWCA Civ 1, tawaran tersebut adalah sah.
Walau bagaimanapun, di dalam kes ini tawaran tersebut sama sekali tidak sah. Ini adalah disebabkan tawaran tersebut bertentangan dengan polisi awam, Akta Kontrak 1950, Kanun Jenayah dan juga kes undang-undang terpakai.
Di dalam kes Coromas Sdn Bhd v. Rakyat First Merchan Bankers Berhad & Anor [1994] 1 MLH 369, Mahkamah Agung telah memutuskan seperti berikut:
“The general principle that a contract, the making of which is prohibited by statute expressly or by implication, shall be void and unenforceable unless the statute itself saves the contract or there are contrary intentions which can reasonably be read from the language of the statute itself, had no application to the present case where the Act provides to the opposite effect, namely, that while it prohibits and penalizes certain agreements or arrangements, it nevertheless reveals an intention that generally a contract shall be valid and enforceable; the exception being where it is otherwise provided in the statute or in pursuance of any provision therein.”
Perkara yang sama juga dinyatakan oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan di dalam kes Co-operative Central Bank Ltd (In receivership) v. Feyen Development Sdn Bhd [1995] 3 MLJ 313, yang mana Mahkamah Persekutuan menyatakan seperti berikut:
“The general rule is that where a contract is prohibited by statute expressly or by implication, and the statute stipulates for penalties for those entering into it, the contract shall be void and unenforceable, unless saved by the statute itself or there are contrary intentions which can reasonably be read from the statute. However, the general rule is subject to exceptions, and it is a question of construction of the particular statute. There appears to be a trend for courts to be less ready to find a contract illegal or unenforceable simply by reason of a statutory provision.”
Ini sama sekali bertepatan dengan Seksyen 24 Akta Kontrak 1950 yan secara verbatimnya adalah seperti berikut:
24 What considerations and objects are lawful, and what not
The consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless—
(a) it is forbidden by a law;
(b) it is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat any law;
(c) it is fraudulent;
(d) it involves or implies injury to the person or property of another, or(e)
the court regards it as immoral, or opposed to public policy.
Peruntukan undang-undang ini serta kes-kes undang-undang yang dinyatakan MESTILAH dibaca bersama dengan Kanun Jenayah yang memperuntukkan seperti berikut:
“351 AssaultWhoever makes any gesture or any preparation, intending or knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person, is said to commit an assault.Explanation—Mere words do not amount to an assault. But the words which a person uses may give to his gestures or preparation such a meaning as may make those gestures or preparations amount to an assault.”
Malahan, terdapat peruntukan-peruntukan yang lain yang boleh digunakan. Peruntukan di atas hanyalah bersifat salah satu daripada yang lain. Malahan, si pembuat tawaran tersebut mungkin boleh didakwa di bawah Seksyen 503 iaitu peruntukan untuk “criminal intimidation”.
Justeru itu, berdasarkan kepada peruntukan undang-undang sedia ada, tawaran tersebut adalah tidak sah dari awal. Sekiranya perjanjian dimasuki berdasarkan kepada tawaran tersebut, makan perjanjian tersebut juga dikategorikan sebagai vod ab initio.
