Madam Joli is about to retire from her job at the age of 55. Her husband, Mr Sawan secretly
arranges for a retirement party by catering from Manang Catering Sdn Bhd (Manang Catering). The
catering company has agreed to provide for 150 guests at RM6,200 which includes a three-kilo
cake, plenty of food and drinks but nothing including prawn, which Madam Joli is allergic to. Mr
Sawan pays RM1000 as deposit and signs a standard order form. On the back of the form are a
number of clauses which Mr Sawan does not read and one of which authorizes Manang Catering to
substitute ingredients other than those originally specified if, in the company’s commercial
judgment, this is reasonable. Two days before the party was to take place, Madam Joli announces
that she will be postponing her retirement for three years. Mr Sawan immediately informs Manang
Catering that he has no need of the company’s services. However, Manang Catering has already
ordered the ingredients and made substantial preparations for the party. After being advised by a
friend who is studying law that Mr Sawan had no legal excuse for withdrawing from the contract,
Manang Catering announces to Mr Sawan that the company is going to prepare the food anyway
and sue Mr Sawan for the agreed price. Mr Sawan insisted that he was not going to pay, and the
company may do whatever it liked. Manang Catering indeed prepares the food, though by accident
includes a few prawn-based dishes in the menu. This is all wasted as no party is held. If Manang
Catering had cancelled the event as Mr Sawan had wished, most of the expense could have been
saved, though about RM1000-worth of food would still probably have been wasted.
Advise Mr Sawan on the legal implication of his situation in relation to the law of contract. Support
your answer by referring to the relevant legal provision(s).