案情:

  1. 在2D的保证下,P与1D签订了投资电影项目协议。这项投资是为了支付电影制作的成本以及演员的费用。
  2. 在投资协议里,1D有责任提供P半年收入和支出报表,而1D则没有这样做。
  3. 电影完成并上映后,P终止协议并要求返还RM200万。
  4. 1D拒绝退款并声称只有在电影获利才需要退还投资金额但影片实际上遭受损失。
  5. 2D避免会面P。 P寻求一些朋友的帮助来引诱2D出来。 2D出现。在P与2D会面中,2D同意返还P RM200万,2D签署担保协议并在同一天将RM30,000.00转账到P的账户。
  6. 2D结果还是无法付款。 P起诉1D和2D要求返还余额投资金额。 1D抗议说P从不要求声明收入和支出报表。 2D抗议说担保协议书是在胁迫下签署的。

 

法庭判决:

  1. 1D没有提供P半年收入和支出报表已经违反合约。在制作电影期间,各方必须确保P投入的资金得到适当利用。在没履行此责任,就如同背叛P。
  2. 在被欺骗的情况下,引诱2D出现的情况是真实的。然而,在会议期间,2D承诺逐步返还投资金额。这个承诺不是在强制下而是自愿的情况下进行,否则2D就有机会议里或之后在记者对他的采访里发表抗议。 2D并没有这样做,因此他知道他必须退还P的投资。
  3. D必须退还余额投资金额。 2D的RM30,000.00付款不予退还。

 

Facts:

  1. Upon an assurance and representation from 2D, P had entered into Investment Agreement with 1D for a movie project. The investment was to defray the cost of the production of the movie as well to pay expenses for the 2 actors mentioned in the agreement。
  2. In the Investment Agreement, 1D has a duty to provide P a half yearly statement of income and expenditure which 1D didn’t do so.
  3. P terminated the Agreement and demand for the return of RM 2 million after the completion and showing of the movie to the public.
  4. 1D refused to refund and claimed the investment sum need only be returned if the film made a profit and the film had in fact suffered a loss.
  5. 2D avoid meeting P. P sought the help of some friends to lure 2D for a meeting. 2D came out. During the meeting, 2D agreed to return P RM2M, signed a guarantee agreement and transferred RM30,000.00 to P’s account on the same day.
  6. 2D failed to pay. P sued 1D and 2D for the return of balance investment sum. 1D argue that P never request the statements. 2D argue that the guarantee was made under coercion and duress.

 

Court Held:

  1. The failure of the 1D in proving the statements is a material breach of the Agreement. It is during this period that the parties would have to ensure that the money invested by P was being properly utilised. Keeping P in the dark of the progress of the financial situation in the making of the movie is tantamount to betraying P.
  2. On the part where 2D was lured into the meeting with P under deception might be true. However, during the meeting 2D had promised to return the investment sum gradually. This promise from 2D was not made under coercion but voluntarily as if it was otherwise 2D had the opportunity to voice his protest at the meeting or afterwards to the journalist who had interviewed him. 2D did not do so thus he knew he had to refund P’s investment.
  3. D had to refund the balance investment sum. 2D’s RM30,000.00 payment is not refundable.

 

[2018] MLJU 1145 High Court


*Please contact us for appointment and/or business enquiries.

*Please visit our legal firm’s website: www.kuekong.com

*Please visit our FB law Group: http://bit.ly/fblawnjustice

*Like our FB Page: http://bit.ly/lawnjusticefbpage

*Please subscribe our YouTube: http://bit.ly/lawnjustice

*Please visit our web forum: http://www.queco.org

*Kuek Ong & Associates

 

Coercion 胁迫下签合约
Kuek Ong & Associates 郭汪律师事务所