vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE CHAPTER
DECLARATION
DEDICATION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
ABSTRACT
ABSTRAK
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF CASES
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
1.2 Background of Problem Statement
1.3 Problem Statement
1.4 Research Question
1.5 Objective of the Study
1.6 Scope of the Study
1.7 Significance of the Study
1
1
13
18 xiii xiv xviii
20
20
21
21
PAGE ii iii iv v vi vii xii

viii
CHAPTER TITLE
1.8 Research Methodology
1.8.1 Stage 1: Initial Study and Finding the Research
Topic.
1.8.2 Stage 2: Collecting Data and Research Design
PAGE
22
22
23
2
1.8.3 Stage 3: Analysing and Interpreting Data
1.8.4 Stage 4: Finding, Conclusion and
Recommendations
1.9 Conclusion
23
23
25
26 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Definition of Construction Contract
2.3 Elements of Contract
26
26
27
2.3.1 Offer and Acceptance
2.3.2 Intention to Create Legal Relation
2.3.3 Consideration
2.3.4 Certainty
2.3.5 Capacity
2.4 Discharge of Contract
2.4.1
Discharge of Contract in Contract Act 1950
2.4.1.1 Discharged by Performance
2.4.1.2 Discharged by Agreement
2.4.1.3 Discharged by Impossibility of
Performance
2.4.1.4 Discharged by Breach
2.4.2 Discharge of Contract at Common Law
2.4.2.1 Discharged by Frustration
37
39
39
31
32
32
32
28
29
30
31
34
36

CHAPTER TITLE
2.4.2.2 Discharged by Repudiation
2.4.2.3 Discharged by Agreement
2.5 Terms and Conditions of a Contract
2.6 Standard Forms of Contracts in Malaysia
2.7 Conclusion
3 TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Termination for Convenience
3.3 Reasons Behind Incorporation of Termination for
Convenience Clause and the Doctrine of Executive
Necessity
3.4 Legal Standing of Termination for Convenience
3.5 Formalities for Exercising Termination for
Convenience
3.6 Effects of Termination for Convenience
4
3.7 Conclusion
GOOD FAITH
4.1 Introduction
5
4.2 Good Faith in Contracts
4.3 Good Faith in Courts Standing
4.4 Conclusion
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Research Methodology ix
55
55
61
54
55
PAGE
44
47
49
52
64
71
80
84
87
74
77
79
79
89
89
89

x
CHAPTER TITLE
5.2.1
Stage 1: Initial Study and Finding the Research
Topic
5.2.2
Stage 2: Data Collection and Research Design
5.2.3
Stage 3: Analysing and Interpreting Data
5.2.4
Stage 4: Finding, Conclusion and
Recommendations
5.3 Conclusion
6 APPLICATION OF GOOD FAITH IN EXERCISING
TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE IN
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Application of Good Faith in Exercising Termination for Convenience in Construction Contracts
6.2.1 Application of Good Faith in Exercising
Termination for Convenience Clause: The
United States of America’s Stand
6.2.2 Application of Good Faith in Exercising
Termination for Convenience Clause:
Australia’s Stand
6.2.3 Application of Good Faith in Exercising
Termination for Convenience Clause: The
United Kingdom’s Stand
6.3 Exclusion of Good Faith by Express Terms
6.4 Conclusion
7 DATA ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Data Analysis – Lists of Cases Discussed
7.3 Data Analysis – Summary of Cases in Accordance to the Jurisdictions
PAGE
90
92
94
95
95
96
96
96
98
105
110
115
116
118
118
118
121

xi
CHAPTER TITLE
7.4 Data Analysis – Summary of Case on Courts Standing
Towards Application of Good Faith in Exercising the
Termination for Convenience Clause in the United
States
7.5 Data Analysis – Summary of Case on Courts Standing towards Application of Good Faith in Exercising the
Termination for Convenience Clause in the United
Kingdom
7.6 Data Analysis – Summary of Case on Courts Standing towards Application of Good Faith in Exercising the
Termination for Convenience Clause in the Australia
7.7 Findings
7.8 Conclusion
PAGE
122
127
129
132
134
8 135 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 Introduction 135
135 8.2 Summary of Research Findings
8.3 Problems Encountered During Research
8.4 Future Research
137
138
138 8.5 Conclusion
REFERENCES
BIBLIOGRAPHY
140
143

xii
TABLE NO.
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
LIST OF TABLES
Lists of Cases Discussed
TITLE
Summary of Cases in Accordance to the Jurisdictions
Summary of cases on courts standing towards application of good faith in exercising the termination for convenience clause in the United States
Summary of courts applied test to proof employer’s bad faith in exercising termination for convenience clause
Summary of cases on courts standing towards application of good faith in exercising the termination for convenience clause in the United Kingdom
Summary of cases on courts standing towards application of good faith in exercising the termination for convenience clause in the Australia
PAGE
119
121
122
125
127
129

xiii
FIGURES NO.
1.1
LIST OF FIGURES
TITLE
Research Methodology Process
PAGE
24

xiv
LIST OF CASES
TITLE CASE NO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
PAGE
A&D Maintenance and Construction Ltd v
Pagehurst Construction Services Ltd [2000] 16
Construction LJ 199
Abbey Developments v PP Brickwork [2003]
EWHC 1987
Affin Credit (M) Sdn Bhd v Yap Yuen Fei [1984] 1
MLJ 169
Anderson Formrite Pty Ltd v Baulderstone Pty Ltd
(No 7) [2010] FCA 921
Apple Communications v Optus Mobile [2001]
NSWSC 365
6
16, 69 & 97
71
70
106
Aseambankers Malaysia Berhad & Ors v Shencourt
Sdn Bhd & Anor [2013] MLJU 1538
Associated Metal Smelters Ltd. v. Tham Cheow
Toh [1971] 1 MLJ 271
Avery v Bowden [1855] 26 Law Journal Queen’s
Bench 3
Bolton v Mahadeva[1972] 2 All ER 1322 Pg. 177.
85
50
46
33
10
11
Brown & Docherty v Whangarei Country [1988] 1
N.Z.L.R. 33
Carr v J.A. Berriman Pty Ltd [1953] 89 CLR 327
7
16 & 97
12 Chiemgauer Membran und Zeltbau GmbH
(formerly Koch Hightex GmbH) v The New
Millennium Experience Company Ltd (formerly
Millennium Central Ltd) 15 December 2000
Chancery Division – unreported.
75

19
20
21
22
23
24
27
28
29
16
17
18
CASE NO
13
14
15
TITLE
Colonial Metals Co. v United States 494 F.2d 1355
(Ct. Cl. 1974)
Corliss Steam-Engine Co. v. United States 10 Ct.
Cl. 494 (1874), aft'd, 91 U.S. 321 (1875)
D. & C. Builders Ltd v Rees
25
26
Davis Contractors Ltd v Fareham Urban District
Council [1956] 2 All ER 145
Dr. A. Dutt v Assunta Hospital [1981]1 MLJ 304
G. L. Christian & Associates v. United States 312
F.2d 418 (Ct. Cl. 1963)
Garry Rogers Motors (Aust) Pty Ltd v Subaru
(Aust) Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 903
GEC Marconi Systems Pty Ltd v BHP Information
Technology Pty Ltd (2003) 128 FCR 1
General Aviation Inc v Cessna Aircraft Co 703 F.
Supp. 637 at 644 (W.D. Mich. 1988)
Gibson v Manchester City Council [1979] 1 ALL
ER 972
Goon Kwee Phoy v J & P Coats [1981]2 MLJ 129
Hadley Design Associates Limited v The Lord
Mayor and Citizens of the City of Westminster
[2003] EWHC 1617
Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual
Programmes Ltd [1989] QB 433 at 439, [1988] 1
All ER 348, [1988] 2 WLR 615
J. M. Hill & Sons Ltd v London Borough of
Camden [1981] 18 BLR 31
Jacobs v. United States 353 U.S. 652 (1957)
Kellogg Brown & Root Pty Ltd v Australian
Aerospace Ltd [2007] VSC 200
Krygoski Construction Company Inc v United
States 94 F. 3d 1537 (Fed. Cir.1996)
65
13 & 60
111
105
106
99 xv
PAGE
100
98
48
2 & 40
60
73
115
47
100
107
103

CASE NO
30
TITLE
Leighton v Arogen [2012] NSWSC 1370
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Macon Works & Trading Sdn Bhd v Phang Hon
Chin [1976] 2 MLJ 177
MacRobertson Miller Airline Services v
Commissioner of Taxation (WA) (1975) 133 Clr
125.
Mersey Steel & Iron Co. v Naylor, Benzon & Co
[1884] 9 App Cas 434
Mertens v Home Freeholds Co. Ltd [1921] 2 KB
526
Metropolitan Water Board v Dick, Kerr & Co. Ltd
[1918] AC 119
Metropolitan Water Board v Dick, Kerr & Co.
Ltd[1918] AC 119
Mid-Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust v Compass
Group UK Limited [2013] EWCA Civ 200
Mintye Properties Sdn Bhd v Yayasan Melaka
[2006] 6 MLJ 420
Multiplex Construction (UK) Ltd. V Cleveland
Bridge UK Ltd and Another [2006] EWHC 1341
(TCC)
Pacific Brands Sport & Leisure v Underworks
[2005] FCA 288
Pasuma Pharmacal Corpn. V. Mc. Alister & Co. Ltd
[1966] 1 MLJ 221
Pembinaan Perwira Harta Sdn Bhd v Letrikon Jaya
Bina Sdn Bhd [2013] 2 MLJ 620
Placer Development Ltd v Commonwealth (1969)
21 CLR 353.
Preston Corporation Sdn Bhd v Edward Leong
[1982] 2 MLJ 22, FC
Questar Builders Inc v CB Flooring LLC 978 a 2d
651 (md, 2009)
Renard Constructions (ME) Pty Ltd v Minister for
Public Works (1992) 26 NSWLR 234 xvi
PAGE
108
66
68
44
42
43
42
111
65
8
106
50
117
15 & 67
64
102
108

xvii
CASE NO
47
TITLE
Sir Lindsay Parkinson & Co. Ltd v Commissioners of Works and Public Buildings [1950] 1 ALL ER
208
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
Sri Kajang Rock Products Sdn Bhd v Maybank
Finance Bhd [1992] 1 CLJ 204
Suisse Atlantique Societe d’ Armement Maritime
SA v NV Rotterdamsche Kolen Central [1966] 2
All ER 61
Thiess Contractors Pty Ltd v Placer (Granny Smith)
Pty Ltd (2000) 16 BCL 130
Thomas Feather & Co. (Bradford) Ltd v Keighley
Corporation [1953] 53 Local Government Reports
30
Tigerswan Inc v The United States 110 Fed. Cl. 336
(2013)
Torncello v United States 681 f 2d 756 (Ct Cl,
1982)
TSG Building Services PLC v South Anglia
Housing Ltd [2013] EWHC 1151 (TCC)
United States v. Behan 10 U.S. 338, 343 (1884)
PAGE
43
70
45
108
5
104
69 & 101
112
62
56
57
58
59
60
61
United States v. Penn Foundry & Mfg. Co 37 U.S.
198 (1949).
Vodafone Pacific Ltd v Mobile Innovations Ltd
[2004] NSWCA 15
White & Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor [1961]
3 All ER 1178
Woodar Investment Development Ltd v Wimpey
Construction UK Ltd [1980] 1 WLR 277
Yam Seng Pte Ltd v International Trade
Corporation Ltd [2013] EWHC 111 (QB)
Yong Ung Kai v. Enting [1965] 2 MLJ 98
76
115
45
9
113
50

PWD
QB
SCR
SLR
UTM
WLR
HL
IEM
JKR
KB
LJ
LR
LT
MLJ
PAM
PSZ
AC
ALL ER
BLR
CA
CB
CIDB
CLR
FC
FIDIC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- xviii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Law Reports Appeal Cases
All England Law Reports
Building Law Report
Court of Appeal
Common Bench Reports
Construction Industry Development Board
Construction Law Report
Federal Court
The International Federation of Consulting Engineers
(Fédération Internationale Des Ingénieurs-Conseils)
House of Lords
Institution of Engineer, Malaysia
Jabatan Kerja Raya
King Bench
Law Journal
Law Reports
Law Times Reports
Malayan Law Journal
Pertubuhan Arkitek Malaysia
Perpustakaan Sultanah Zanariah
Public Work Department
Queen Bench
Supreme Court of Canada
Singapore Law Reports
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
Weekly Law Report