Question

Z, an impoverished university student, and his millionaire father enter into an agreement where Z agrees that he will keep the front and backyards of the family property mowed, and he will do a bit to keep the gardens looking tidy. In return his father agrees to pay him a weekly allowance of RM200. His father had previously used a garden contractor to do the job and paid him RM350. They live on one-hectare property, and the mowing alone takes half a day a week. After four weeks, Z’s father tells him that he cannot afford to pay RM200 a week. He says that Z should be doing the job for nothing, as it is the responsibility of the whole family to look after the property; besides, he says Z is getting free board and lodging. Advise Z

Answer 1

Issue : There is a social or domestic, and probably oral, agreement between the two parties - father and Z. There is a breach of contract of the above agreement between father and Z when the father refused to pay the sum decided at the time of formulation of the agreement.

Legal aspect : The validity of this contract in court is not clear as social agreements are not usually legally binding unless formally drafted and co-signed according to legal statutes. The agreement is however a binding domestic contract between the two parties, wherein one will perform a service and one will provide remuneration as agreed.

Agreement and application : Z agreed to mow the front and back yards of the property and to do his bit to keep the gardens looking tidy. The father would pay for this service a weekly amount of RM200. The previous rate for a contractor gardening is not relevant as Z agreed to this amount and the service that is relates to. Though it is not specified here, it is assumed that Z has performed his service as stated and that the father has paid the amount for the first three weeks as agreed at the end of each week. The issue in question therefore is the 4th week's worth of work that Z has performed and that the father has not paid for.

Conclusion : The breach of contract refers to 1 week's worth of work i.e. half a day for moving, additional for keeping the gardens looking tidy, the sum in question is RM200 that Z is due from his father. As Z is living in his father's house and partaking of his room and board facilities, though Z did do the work in good faith and in anticipation of receiving the amount, however the fact that he uses other benefits from the family mean that he also owes them something in return - even if this is not captured in any specific agreement. The tacit understanding is that as Z is living at home, he should contribute to the well-being and upkeep of the family property and so the work being done on the garden and yards can be counted as his contribution, since he is a penniless student. The room and board can be viewed as being in lieu of the allowance his father is supposed to pay him. Trying to enforce this agreement could lead to a bad outcome in terms of damaging familial relationships and so Z should accept this situation with a good grace and relinquish any idea of legally enforcing the agreement against his father (which he would likely lose).