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

Read more ...

Night After Spending Time At Book Festival

Among the books I just bought this evening

It is a tiring day, after I spent the time with Afiq and Azrul at book festival. Bought eleven books and all the books are relating to literature stuff. So, tonight fellas, nothing to do with my new books, it is time for revision - just a little bit.

We will continue with Jual Janji.

Jual Janji is a type of collateral agreement with 2 elements;

1. borrower to pay the amount of the loan withing stipulated time

2. lender to return the land upon the full payment withing stipulated time

There are two interpretations of Jual Janji based on the case law;

The first interpretation is a strict interpretation and
the second interpretation is a liberal interpretation

In the case of HJ ABDUL RAHMAN V MAHOMED HASSAN (1917) AC 209, there is a strict interpretation of Jual Janji which is Jual Janji is only a contractual arrangment and decided under the law of contract. If borrower failed to pay the loan in stipulated time, he will lost the right to redeem the land.

The liberal interpretation is that Jual Jani is a security transaction. Mortgage is used as reference to interpret Jual Janji, in order to make Jual Janji is similar as mortgage which is a security transaction applied in UK Law - in the case of YAACOB LEBAI JUSOH V HAMISAH SAAD (1950) 1 MLJ 255, in this case Jual Janji is regarded as equitable security transaction where borrower still can redeem the land even though the payment is made out of stipulated time.

However in 1981 in the case of A. KANAPATHI PILLAY V JOSEPH CHONG (1981)2 MLJ 117, the court didn't follow the decision in YAACOB LEBAI JUSOH, where Salleh Abas stated, inter alia, the case of YAACOB LEBAI JUSOH V HAMISAH SAAD can't be followed because it equate Jual Janji with mortgage and mortgage not part of our law.

(to be continue)

Based on lecture's note on 07 July 2009

Read more ...

Late Sleep and Reading "Jual Janji"

I don't want to make this blog to be to formal to be read. So last night I slept pretty late around 4 am did my stuff on the blogs, blog hoping, commenting the entries and commenting at Facebook.
Around 3 something in that very early morning, I started to feel so sleepy, so before I went for dreaming time, just did some reading on "Jual Janji", plus the first test of Land Law II is just around the corner.

So what we know about "Jual Janji". Jual Janji is a security transaction which was practiced traditionally a long time ago and it is based of the Islamic concept. In Jual Janji, lender (creditor) will advance some money and the borrower (debtor) will transfer the interest of the land to the lender. Borrower required to pay the loan in stipulated time and failure to pay in the stipulated time, the lender can invoke "Jual Putus".

SK Das defined Jual Janji as
a conditional transfer with the right to repurchase or known as conditional sales

while

WE Maxwell defined Jual Janji as
dealing between the owner of the land where he sells his proprietory right to the creditor, upon full payment, borrower can take back the land

After Jual Janji is made and during the period of the loan, lender not suppose to deal with the land because the land is only as security. This was decided in the case of MOHD ISA V HJ IBRAHIM (1968) 1 MLJ 186. In this case there were two Jual Janji agreements, the lender who hold the possession of land in the first Jual Janji agreement, had made the second Jual Janji agreement with the Appellant. Respondent brought an action claiming that the transfer of the land to Appellant (in the second Jual Janji agreement) to be declared void.

(to be continue)

Based on lecture's note on 07 July 2009

Read more ...