Simple Lunch

I am just having my lunch. The simple lunch at home, however it is not a home made food, it is "a shop made food". LOL! It is okay to have a simple lunch as long as I can fill my empty stomach, plus it is a simple lunch for a simple bachelor like me.Yeah of course, no one to cook for me as well as for all my housemates. :D

Simple lunch for a simple bachelor :D

Alright fellas, previously I posted the entries on Jual Janji, and this time we will continue it.

As in the note before, we know that there are two interpretation of Jual Janji which are

1. strict interpretation
2. liberal interpretation

Here we'll continue to discuss about the strict interpretation. Strict interpretation as in the case of HJ ABDUL RAHMAN V MAHOMED HASSAN, Jual Janji is mere a contractual agreement where the time is of essence. Borrower must pay the amount of loan within the stipulated time, failure to pay withing the stipulated time, the borrower will lose his right over the land.

However there are two exceptions where the time is no longer of essence
when
1. There is conduct of lender to avoid the repayment. So lender breached the performance under the contract, time no longer considered as the essence.
This can be observed

in the case of AHMAD BIN OMAR V HJ SALLEH SYEIK OSMAN (1987) 1 MLJ 338 where the lender was avoiding the borrower when borrower attempted to repay the loan

and

in the case of HALIJAH REJAB V ABDULLAH SAAD (2004) 2 AMR 665 where the lender refused the money from borrower and wanted a letter of confirmation.

2. The lender gives the extention of time to the borrower. By giving the extention of time, it is a waiver to the time as essence.
This can be seen

in the case of ISMAIL HJ EMBONG V LAU KONG HAN (1970) 1 MLJ 213, there is an extention of time of 5 - 6 months to repay the loan with condition the plaintiff (borrower) continue to pay $40 monthly interest.
(this case involve some calculation)
The amount of loan in $2000 - to repay within 8 months with $40 monthly interest. Expiry of 8 months was in March 1960. Borrower failed to pay and lender gave an extention of time of 5 - 6 months to repay the loan with condition the plaintiff (borrower) continue to pay $40 monthly interest. Plaintiff paid $40 monthly interest until October 1965. Borrower, then, offered to pay $3000 but lender (defendant) refused and asked fro $6000 as $2000 for capital and $4000 as profit.
As extension was given, time no longer as essence, therefore plaintiff is entitled to repurchase the land on payment of the sum of money lawfully due to the defendant.

I'm not intended to discuss the case of NAWAB DIN V MOHAMED SHARIFF where it follows the decision in YAACOB LEBAI JUSOH V HAMISAH SAAD (refer previous entry) as well as the case of OTHMAN & ANOR V MEK.

Based on lecture's note on 07 July 2009