While the signatures of documents are to serve only as proof of the consent of the parties to the contractual conditions and there is no legal obligation for these documents to be written or signed, Section 9 of the Court does not technically apply to these documents. However, from a practical point of view, parties may use the requirements set out in Section 9 of the Court as a useful guide for the electronic signature of documents and the acceptance of electronically signed documents by counterparties, since it is likely that courts would consider similar factors if they were to take into account the weight to be given to electronic signatures affixed to documents. Similarly, under Malaysian law, there is no general requirement to sign a simple contract for the contract to be valid and enforceable. Traditionally, signatures were of course often used as a means of labeling a party`s acceptance of contractual terms. However, a valid and binding contract can be concluded without the use of signatures (e.g. B by exchange of correspondence by e-mail attesting that the parties have accepted the conditions). Some types of documents (e.g.B. documents and powers) must be executed in some way to be valid or effective, but again, the majority of documents and agreements do not fall into these categories. Can a beneficiary of the subscription be refused and, if so, can the company avoid liability arising from the performance of such acts by declaring that it was not signed by an authorized person? This article deals with these circumstances. This power may also be expressed by mutual agreement between the client and the agent (the decision of the Federal Court in Chew Hock San & Ors against Connaught Housing Development Sdn Bhd  1 MLJ 350). Such agreements may take the form of a power of attorney or a list of authorized signatories for the execution of very specific documents.
This power can also be issued by a letter of power of attorney issued by the company itself. This part will deal with the question whether, if it is established that the signatures were affixed without the authority of the undertaking, the undertaking may invalidate the performance of such instruments and would therefore not be binding on the undertaking The agent, Choo, had stated that he was manifestly entitled to act on behalf of CEPCO, the undertaking concerned in this case, in order to conclude the management contract. . . .