THE APPLICATION OF MISREPRESENTATION UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE CONTRACTS ACT 1950 IN MALAYSIAN CASE LAW

Section 18 of the Contracts Act 1950 identifies misrepresentation as a factor that may vitiate free consent and undermine the validity of a contract. However, the statutory provision is broadly worded and lacks clear categorisation, resulting in continued reliance on Common Law distinctions which classify misrepresentation into three namely fraudulent, negligent, and innocent misrepresentation. This classification is not expressly provided in the Act. The ambiguity surrounding the scope and interpretation of Section 18 of the CA1950 has led to inconsistent judicial reasoning and uncertainty in the remedies granted. Despite its significant impact on contractual disputes, there is limited scholarly analysis on how Malaysian courts have interpreted and applied this provision. This study adopts a qualitative legal research methodology, drawing on literature review and descriptive legal analysis. It examines judicial decisions and academic commentary relating to misrepresentation under Malaysian law. The analysis reveals that Malaysian courts employ divergent approaches in determining the presence and effect of misrepresentation. These inconsistencies highlight conceptual ambiguity and the judiciary’s dependence on Common Law principles in the absence of clear statutory guidance. The study concludes that the interpretation of misrepresentation under Section 18 of the CA1950 remains unclear, fragmented, and heavily dependent on judicial discretion. These issues highlight the need for statutory reform to clarify the categories and elements of misrepresentation, the development of judicial guidelines to promote consistent application, and doctrinal clarification to strengthen predictability and coherence in contractual adjudication.