Abstract:
The Federal Court’s decision in Berjaya Times Square Sdn Bhd v M-Concept Sdn Bhd [2010] 1 MLJ 597; [2010] 1 CLJ 269 has not added clarity to the law or certainty to the outcome in a common dispute over a common transaction. It is necessary to revisit the decision. The discharge of a contract for breach or repudiation following termination and the ensuing damages claim are determined by their own set of principles. The legal response of restitution to an unjust enrichment after the discharge of contract also has its own principles. Names of these incidents may differ, but it is understood what principles they attract. Conflation of established principles is to be avoided. Since there is already a body of doctrines applicable in these areas of the common law, this article is a call to return to their orthodox application.