A legal study on Malaysian contract law: economic duress and doctrine of unconscionability / Nur Liyana Mohd Norizam, Nurul Izzah Mohd Nazri and Puteri Farahwati Faizan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Contracts Act 1950 (Malaysia) is an old statute which basically adopted after the Indian Contract 1872. When there is lacuna in the law, our court will refer to English Common Law before the cut off dates to fill up the lacuna as provided under section 3 and 5 of Civil Law Act 1956. Nonetheless, these archaic laws are incapable to govern issue in present time. Furthermore, the development of laws around the world especially in this era of globalization ICT development causes our laws to grow as well. Some of the disputes which are now rising out of the agreement or contract between parties are that the existing contract laws in Malaysia are unable to solve some problems, such as issues on economic duress and unconscionability. Thus, this causes problem to our legal system.In order to curb this problem, our research will be focusing on the issue on economic duress and the doctrine of unconscionability in which our Contract Act 1950 is silent. These provisions are already developed in other countries, such as United States and Canada. This research will analyse the above issues with reference to the Malaysian Contract law, United Kingdom Law, United States Law and Canadian Law.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".