HOME

INTRODUCTION: THE FRAGILITY OF PACTA SUNT SERVANDA

Pacta sunt servanda, the foundational principle of international commercial law, mandates that agreements must be kept. This principle underpins the predictability required for global trade, enabling parties to rely on the stability of their agreements despite market fluctuations and environmental changes (Schwenzer et al., 2012). Nevertheless, the volatility of the contemporary global economy frequently challenges this principle. When unforeseen events render contractual performance fundamentally different from what the parties originally contemplated, legal systems must determine whether to enforce the agreement strictly or permit its equitable discharge (Cavalieri and Salvatore, 2024).

The persistent tension between contractual stability and commercial hardship presents a significant challenge in legal theory. Absolute enforcement of contracts ensures that risks are allocated according to the parties' original intent (DiMatteo, 2014). Conversely, rigid legal application during catastrophic change may result in outcomes that are both inequitable and commercially detrimental. This article examines the fundamental tension between the inflexible common law doctrine of frustration, as codified in section 57 of the Malaysian Contracts Act 1950, and the more adaptable impediment model articulated in Article 79 of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG). For Malaysian practitioners involved in cross-border trade, comprehending these divergent legal philosophies is crucial. The distinction between a law that terminates contracts and one that offers a strategic exemption from liability can determine commercial viability. Contemporary legal scholarship emphasises that transitioning from domestic to international frameworks necessitates a shift from formalistic impossibility to a focus on functional commercial realities (Arjunan and Nabi Baksh, 2018).

The English version of the Federal Constitution is the nation’s authoritative legal document until the Yang di-Pertuan Agong declares otherwise, Putrajaya has asserted in its official defence against a lawsuit seeking to elevate the Bahasa Melayu version.

The government stated that the Agong has not yet prescribed the Bahasa Melayu text as supreme under Article 160B of the constitution, which allows for such a declaration to be made, Free Malaysia Today reported.

It cited two landmark Federal Court rulings in the cases of Indira Gandhi and Loh Siew Hong as binding precedents that have already settled the matter.

“The English version of the constitution is the one that prevails,” the government said in its statement of defence.