Consider to what extent a 3rd party dealing with a company is protected by Section 20 of the Companies Act.
Before company incorporated Section 16(1) Company Act require 2 documents, the Memorandum of Association (MOA) and Articles of Association (AOA), for the proposed company must lodged with the Registrar of Companies with the other documents. The MOA and AOA are considered as the constitution of the companies. The memorandum is the important document to set out the provision mainly concerned with the relationship between the company and the outsider, the extent of the member’s liability and also the objects and power of the company. These matters are of the interest not only to the present and the future members, but also for those who are interested to do the business with the company. In the other hand, the articles refer to the internal regulations of the company with concern the company and dealing with the members. If a company limited by share does not lodge its own articles then it may adopt Table A of the Fourth Schedule.
One of the requirements of MOA under Section 18(1) is the object clause of the company. The object clause tells us the extent of the power and legal capacity of the company. A company is a legal creation, has the capacity to act according to what is set out by the objects clause. When a company acts beyond what that objects clause have allowed, their acts are considered as ultra vires and therefore considered void. To allow a company to undertake other activities in future and avoid the activities from being ultra vires , normally a memorandum should have some objective . If there are more objectives it means that a company can be involved in a wider range of the activities. To prevent abuse by allowing multiple objectives, the court has classified the objects clause into 3 main classifications:
The main objects clause or Independent Objects Clause
The Incidental objects or Dependent Objects Clause
Power-consequential to the stated objects.
It is important for the company to enter into transaction that is within it object clause. This is because the company cant do anything that is not authorized by the object clause in MOA or else that act is ultra vires the company and one that entered into in breach of directors duties. A company cannot ratify an ultra vires but can approve of an act that was unauthorized or irregular. As a 3rd party deal with the company him/her should know at what extent law will protect him/her with the company and also should know the legal effect of ultra vires to him/her as 3rd party.
The legal effect of ultra vires contract can be divided into 2 parts which is under Common Law and Companies Act. Under Common Law , an act or transaction is ultra vires is done outside the object clause , such transaction was void and did not bind the company and also did not have any legal effect . Even though all the members approve the contract, but are still cant make an ultra vires contract or act is valid and make it binding on the company.
The application of ultra vires in Common Law , we can refer to case of Ashbury Railway Carriage & Iron V Riche (1875). In this case, the company object clause to sell or lend on hire, railway carriages and wagons and all kinds of railway plant, fittings, machinery and rolling stock and to carry on the business as mechanical engineers. The company bought concession to build a railway in Belgium, subcontracting work to the defendant. Later the company refused to carry out the contract. The court held that constructing a railway was not within the company’s object and so the company did not have the capacity to enter into the concession contract or sub contractor. Therefore, the contract was void for ultra vires and the defendant had no rights to damages for breach. The member also can’t ratify it and the company could neither enforce nor forced into performing its obligations. The strict application of the doctrine often create problems because it became a convenient excuse for the company to avoid legal obligations and were caused frustrating 3rd parties from obtaining legal right under a contact.
In this case, it shows that ultra vires doctrine give protection more to shareholders and creditors. The shareholder is the one who provide the capital by the way of investment. Therefore, it is important for them that company did not do activities or businesses that are outside from its object clause specified in the MOA. Creditors also are protected because an ultra vires doctrine ensured the funds of the company were applied only to the stated objects of which creditors were aware. But, how about other party such 3rd party who deals with the company? Are they being protected such protections given to shareholders and creditors?
Under common law, 3rd party who deal with the company is not protected. This will create an injustice business scenario. Because of this, Section 20 of the Companies Act is introduction in Malaysia and eliminates the used of Common Law. Before Section 20 of Companies Act is used, which is under common law, 3rd party interest is not protected. How all parties want to know whether the company they dealing with is doing business within company object clause? It is not realistic to expect all parties dealing with the company to examine the company memorandum. It would impose a great inconvenience and hinder normal business practice. This is giving a party to responsible to the contract and avoid legal obligation or to prevented the enforcement of legal right under a contract. A simple word can say that a common law is not providing justice to 3rd party dealing with the company. So, changes in Section 20 of Companies Act are giving more protection to 3rd party.
Section 20(1) specifies company relationship with 3rd party. It states that ‘no act or purported act of a company (including the enter into the agreement by the company under purported authority, whether express or implied, of the company) and no conveyance of transfer of property, whether real or personal, to or by a company shall be invalid by reason only of the fact that the company was without capacity or power to do the action or to execute or to take conveyance or transfer. This means even though the company enters to the contact is not within its object clause contract is still binding upon a company. Therefore, a company cannot refuse to perform a contract or transaction just because of no capacity. The other party also cannot get of out a transaction by showing that transaction is ultra vires the company. Form the situation of 3rd party will protected in Section 20(1) of the Companies Act if his / her intend to deal with the company even though the transaction is ultra vires and also his/her cant get out of that transaction just because it is an ultra vires contract.
Under Section 20(2) (a) a member or debenture can restrain the company carrying out the ultra vires contract before it is fully performed. If the company is restrained from acting upon the contract, it will be in breach of the contract. In this section provide that proceeding against the company by any member of the company or where the company has issued debentures secured by floating charge over all or any of the company property, by the holder of any those debentures or the trustee for the holder of those debentures to restrain to doing any act or acts or the conveyance or transfer of any property to or by the company. This is where any shareholder or debenture holder whether secured by floating charge or trustee can apply to the court to stop a company to performing and fully performing an ultra vires contract. This is due to they are who one to provide the capital or fund to the company and surely include in the MOA. But, where an ultra vires transaction is sought to be restrained under Section 20(2)(a) by the court, it has to satisfied two conditions which is under Section 20(3).
First condition that must be satisfied is all parties to the contract must be parties to action court. For example : If En Azmizi is one of the shareholder of PCR Bhd apply to court to stop the company from performing the ultra vires . When he apply to court, all parties to such contract with PCR Bhd and A (3rd party) must be a parties to court action. And second condition is court must find just and fair to make such order. When a court make the order , court may allow compensation to be paid either party for losses from the contract being stop. But ,court cant order for loss of profit to be paid.
Whereas Section 20(2) (b) give members, on behalf of company to sue the current and past director of the company responsible o the ultra vires act. This an exception rules of Foss V Harbottle. If the 3rd party has been fully performed, members cant sue the directors. Member is allow to sue the contract if not perform yet or partly perform.
As a 3rd party ,his / her deal with the company , his/her legal right will be protected by Section 20(1) of the Companies Act where the company cant escape the contract even though the ultra vires contract. Mean while, Section 20(2) (a) and Section 20(2)(b) will protects member interest in the company. Section 20(2)(a) allow member to apply to court to stop the company from performing and full performing the ultra vires contract. In Section 20(2)(b) , it said that member on behalf of the company can sue current and past director responsible to ultra vires contract. So, as 3rd party there is fully protected.