3b. ATC CLP - PYQs - General Paper (Contract) (2010-2022)

[CLP] GENERAL PAPER – Contract
GENERAL PAPER
CONTRACT
1
Advance Tertiary College | ATC School of Law
[CLP] GENERAL PAPER – Contract
Index:
No Year / Papers* Page
1 2010 July ……………………………………………………. 1
2 2010 October ………………………………………………... 2
3 2011 July ……………………………………………………. 3
4 2011 October ………………………………………………... 4
5 2012 July ……………………………………………………. 5
6 2012 October ………………………………………………... 6
7 2013 July ……………………………………………………. 7
8 2013 October ………………………………………………... 9
9 2014 July ……………………………………………………. 10
10 2014 October ………………………………………………... 11
11 2015 July ……………………………………………………. 14
12 2015 November ……………………………………………... 17
13 2016 August ………………………………………………… 18
14 2016 November ……………………………………………... 20
15 2017 August ………………………………………………… 22
16 2017 November ……………………………………………... 25
17 2018 July ……………………………………………………. 27
18 2018 November ……………………………………………... 31
19 2019 July ……………………………………………………. 34
20 2019 November ……………………………………………... 35
21 2020 (March 2021) …………………………………………. 38
22 2020 (December 2021) ……………………………………… 42
23 2021 (April 2022) …………………………………………… 44
24 2022 (October 2022) ………………………………………... 45
* Source: http://www.lpqb.org.my/
2
[CLP] GENERAL PAPER - Contract
2010 July
2010 July
Mr & Mrs Anthony Gullible who had just got married were desirous of purchasing an
apartment to start off their married life. They visited the Promotion and Marketing Programmes
of Anything Can Sdn Bhd. When the Gullibles visited the booth on 16.1.2009, they were
attended to by MR. Vijaykanth Sundram, the Director of Sales and his two (2) assistants, Encik
Zulkifli Zain and Cik Amber Boh. The Gullibles were presented a rather elaborated and
colourful brochure which included the following salient features:
(i) this was a high-end development restricted to two (2) apartments on each floor of a
five-floor project known as “Samba Heights” at Jalan Ampang, Kuala Lumpur;
(ii) Samba Heights was to be surrounded by a park with a walking path surrounding a lake;
(iii) it was to be with full around-the-clock security;
(iv) the common property of the units was to be maintained fully; and
(v) a panoramic view of Kuala Lumpur City Centre (KLCC) in the background.
(a) there was no park surrounding Samba Heights but instead a clump of food stalls which
affected the cleanliness of the surroundings. As to the walking path, there was a bare
track with overgrown grass and infested with wild dogs;
(b) there were no security guards in place, just two (2) Bangladeshi construction workers
who doubled up as security guards;
(c) the lifts are constantly out of order and despite protestations by the Gullibles, nothing
was done to remedy the same. This has caused distress to Mrs. Gullible who is in the
family way and their apartment is on the 3rd floor.
The Gullibles have paid the full purchase price. They feel short-changed by the Developer.
(1) advise the Gullibles as to their rights in law against the Developer in this situation;
(20 marks)
(2) discuss the possible remedies against the Developer (10 marks)
(3) settle a Statement of Claim against the Developer for the Gullibles based on your
advice. (20 marks)
1
2010 October
2010 October
Syarikat buy Anything Sdn. Bhd. (the seller) was the distributor of specialised forklifts in
Malaysia. Syarikat Anything Goes Sdn. Bhd. (the buyer) approached the seller to purchase one
(1) unit of forklift and thereafter both the seller and the buyer entered into a Written Agreement
dated 15.3.2010 wherein the seller was to supply the said forklift for RM900, 000/- and it was
a term of the Agreement that the forklift was to be delivered to the buyer on or before
22.3.2010. Both the buyer and the seller have their registered and business offices in Ipoh. The
seller was paid a deposit of 10% of the purchase price amounting to RM90, 000/- and the
balance purchase price to be paid on delivery. The seller was unable to deliver the forklift by
the said delivery date. The seller entered into negotiations with the buyer to extend the delivery
date and thereafter it was agreed by both parties that the revised date of delivery was set for
12.4.2010. In the meanwhile the buyer was approached by Gazzamp Sdn. Bhd. to sell a similar
forklift to the buyer for RM500, 000/- on a six (6) instalment plan. The buyer immediately
jumped to accept the offer and terminated the Agreement with the seller on the basis of the
seller’s failure to deliver the forklift by the 22.3.2010 the original deadline. The machinery is
ready for delivery before 12.4.2010.
(a) Advise Syarikat Buy Anything Sdn. Bhd. (seller) on its rights and remedies
available to it. (20 marks)
(b) Would it have made a difference to you advice if the revised date was not agreed
upon? (10 marks)
(c) Draft a Statement of Claim on behalf of the Seller. (10 marks)
2
2011 July
2011 July
(a) it was a 2011 model;

(b) white, the colour of Mr. Lim’s choice, was available;
(c) comes equipped with free sensor touch radio adhering to voice command worth
RM50,000/- on the market;
(d) a TV screen at the back of the car worth RM50,000/- for the whole system;
(e) a GPS System worth RM50,000/-;
(f) an assurance that Mr. Lim would get 90% financing for the car; and
(g) an all-expense paid trip for two (2) to London worth RM50,000/-
Upon delivery of the car, Mr. Lim was shocked to discover the following:
(a) the car was a 2009 model and the deprecated value was RM50,000/- less;
(b) the car was purple in colour;
(c) none of the features represented to MR. Lim by Mr. Shifty came with the car and Mr.
Lim had to pay at the market prices to install these features in the car; and
(d) instead of the promised trip to London, Mr. Lim was given vouchers worth RM500/- to
spend at any MPH bookstore.
Despite having taken delivery of the car, Mr. Lim is fuming about being short changed
and now seeks your advice.
(a) Advice Mr. Lim on the legal rights that he may have against Clear Stock Sdn.
Bhd., if any. (20 marks)
(b) What remedies are available to Mr. Lim? Could he also bring a claim against Mr.
Shifty in Mr. Shifty’s personal capacity? (10 marks)
(c) Draft a Statement of Claim on Mr. Lim’s behalf against Clear Stock Sdn. Bhd.
(20 marks)
3
2011 October
2011 October
Angsana Sdn. Bhd. appointed Kontraktori Sdn. Bhd. to build six (6) units of two (2) storey
shop houses at an agreed sum of RM600, 000/- (“the Contract Sum”). The land on which the
construction was to take place is located in the Cheras area within Kuala Lumpur. Kontraktori
Sdn. Bhd. completed five (5) units and some work on the sixth unit but was unable to complete
the sixth unit due to a claim lodge by a third party against Angsana Sdn. Bhd. on 1.6.2011.
Throughout the construction period, Kontraktori Sdn. Bhd. was on schedule but was not paid
anything at all. After work on the sixth unit had stopped, Kontraktori Sdn. Bhd. sent a bill for
RM520, 000/- to Angsana Sdn. Bhd. on 2.6.2011. Angsana Sdn. Bhd. refused to settle the same
and on 13.6.2011, they wrote a letter refuting Kontraktori Sdn. Bhd.’s claim.
(a) You are required to advise Kontraktori Sdn. Bhd. on the possible causes of action
available to it against Angsana Sdn. Bhd. (20 marks)
(b) Since Kontraktori Sdn. Bhd. had not completed the said construction, are they
entitled to sue for breach of contract? (10 marks)
(c) Draft a Statement of Claim for Kontraktori Sdn. Bhd. based on your advice in
paragraph (a) above. (20 marks)
4
2012 July
2012 July
One Mr. Vijayakant, a major shareholder and Managing Director of Chapparal Development
Sdn. Bhd. (‘CDSB’) entered into negotiations with Shiloh Bank Berhad (‘the Bank’) in
February 2001 to obtain a loan facility to finance a high end development project called “The
Panderossa”. It involved the construction of fifty (50) bungalows in a guarded community with
a helipad to be built. The Senior Credit Manager of the Bank, Mr. Tan Book Kheng, conducted
negotiations on the Bank’s behalf through its branch at Shah Alam. It was finally agreed that a
term loan of RM50 million was to be granted to CDSB. It was orally agreed between Mr.
Vijayakant and Mr. Tan that, although the loan amount of RM50 million would be disbursed
progressively, repayment of the principal sum and interest would be deferred for twenty four
(24) months to enable the bungalows to be completed and the proceeds of the sale to be used
to progressively settle the loan amount (‘the Oral Agreement’). A Letter of Offer was issued to
CDSB to the attention of Mr. Vijayakant and was signed by Mr. Tan Book Kheng in his
capacity as Senior Credit Manager of the Bank.
On that basis, CDSB signed a Term Loan Agreement dated 1.3.2011 with the Bank. Despite
no mention being made of the Oral Agreement, CDSB proceeded based on the strength of the
Oral Agreement.
CDSB was shocked when, on 1.6.2011, the Bank stopped disbursement of the loan because
CGSB had failed to pay the monthly instalments as set out in the Term Loan Agreement. This
has caused severe financial constraint to CDSB causing “The Panderossa” project to grind to
halt. All attempts by CDSB to resolve the matter have failed. The estimated loss to CDSB as a
consequence of this would be in the region of RM70 million. CDSB now seeks your advice.
(a) You are required to advise Chapparal Development Sdn. Bhd. on the possible
causes of action available to it against Shiloh Bank Berhad. (20 marks)
(b) If your opinion in paragraph (a) above is that Chapparal Development Sdn. Bhd.,
has a cause of action against Shiloh Bank Berhad, does the fact that Mr. Tan Boon
Kheng is a Senior Credit Manager of Shiloh Bank Berhad make any difference?
(10 marks)
(c) Draft a Statement of Claim for Chapparal Development Sdn. Bhd. based on your
advice in paragraph (a) above. (20 marks)
5
2012 October
2012 October
Take That Sdn. Bhd. had agreed to purchase a metal melting furnace from the Defendant, Easy
Come Easy Go Sdn. Bhd. and had paid Easy Come Easy Go ninety percent (90%) of the total
purchase price of RM 1 million i.e. RM900,000/-. Take That Sdn. Bhd. had orally indicated to
Easy Come Easy Go Sdn. Bhd. that the said melting furnace should have a temperature of not
lower than 2,600 degrees F. which was essential for the smelting of the Plaintiff’s products.
In view of the urgent need of the Plaintiff for the melting furnace, they wrote on 28.5.2012
confirming the order on these terms:
“To:
Easy Come Easy Go Sdn. Bhd.
Wisma Metal
Suite 20-10, 4th Floor
Jalan Pudu
Kuala Lumpur
Please supply one High Temperature Melting Furnace at the purchase price of RM1 million
(RM900, 000/- paid and acknowledged) within two (2) weeks from the date hereof.
……………………….
(BUNSEN LIM)
Director”
On 1.6.2012, Easy Come Easy Go Sdn. Bhd. wrote to the Plaintiff as follows:
“To:
Take That Sdn. Bhd.
99, Jalan Khoo Teik Ee
Kuala Lumpur
Thank you for your order and we confirm the payment of RM900,000/- . We assure the Melting
Furnace will have temperature of not lower than 2,600 degree F. taking into account the
peculiar needs of your customer.
………………………………
(DAVID SAY ANYTHING)
Director”
The Melting Furnace was supplied to Take That Sdn. Bhd., and they paid Easy Come Easy Go
Sdn. Bhd. the balance of RM100,000/- . Subsequently, it was discovered the Melting Furnace
could not withstand the stipulated temperature. Take That Sdn. Bhd. had to shut its operation
to upgrade the furnace to its needs at a cost of RM200, 000/- . Further, customers’ orders worth
RM500, 000/- had to be cancelled.
(a) Advise Take That Sdn. Bhd. on its rights to pursue an action against Easy Come
Easy Go Sdn. Bhd. (20 marks)
(b) What would your advice be if the response from Easy Come Easy Go Sdn. Bhd. is
that they are not aware of the customers of Take That Sdn. Bhd. and of the
cancellations? (10 marks)
(c) Draft a Statement of Claim for Take That Sdn. Bhd. (20 marks)
6
2013 July
2013 July
Quick Sale Sdn. Bhd. was the registered owner of land and a four (4) storey building erected
thereon held under Pajakan Negeri 45762, Lot 8741, Seksyen 15, Mukim Batu, District of
Kuala Lumpur ,Wilayah Persekutuan (hereinafter referred to as “the said Property”). Quick
Sale Sdn. Bhd. entered into negotiations with your client, Ready To Go Sdn. Bhd. to sell the
said Property to them. After negotiations with your client, Quick Sale Sdn. Bhd. wrote to your
client as follows:
7
2013 July
Your client instructs you further that upon receipt of the letter, they responded as follows:
Before the matter could move forward, Quick Sale Sdn. Bhd. wrote to Ready To Go Sdn. Bhd.
on 5.5.2010 stating that the sale was aborted. Ready To Go Sdn. Bhd. had already set plans in
motion to locate their Corporate Headquarters on the said Property.
(a) Advise Ready To Go Sdn. Bhd. As to their rights and the options available to them
based on the given facts. (20 marks)
(b) Discuss briefly the remedies available to Ready To Go Sdn. Bhd. (10 marks)
(c) Based on your advice in paragraph (a) above, draft a Statement of Claim on behalf
of Ready To Go Sdn. Bhd. (20 marks)
8
2013 October
2013 October
Dubious Mines Sdn. Bhd. is the owner of a piece of land located at Tambun, Perak. Dubious
Mines Sdn. Bhd. approached Naïve Sdn. Bhd. to commence earth excavation works on
Dubious Mines Sdn. Bhd.’s piece of land. By a letter dated 1.2.2013 confirmed by both parties,
an agreement was reached between both parties which provided:
(i) the total consideration for the earth excavation works in RM550,000/-;
(ii) work was to commence on 1.3.2013 and upon commencement, Naïve Sdn. Bhd was to
be paid RM50,000/-. This sum was paid to Naïve Sdn. Bhd. by Dubious Mines Sdn.
Bhd.;
(iii) the next progress payment was due on 15.3.2013 amounting to RM150,000/-. This was
paid by Dubious Mines Sdn. Bhd. to Naïve Sdn. Bhd.;
(iv) the next progress payment was due on 31.3.2013 amounting to RM200,000/-. This was
not paid by Dubious Mines Sdn. Bhd. However, Naïve Sdn. Bhd. continued earth
excavation works; and
(v) the next progress payment of RM100,000/- was due on 15.4.2013 but again, Dubious
Mines Sdn. Bhd. did not pay Naïve Sdn. Bhd.. Up to that stage, Dubious Miens Sdn.
Bhd. had always confirmed in writing that Naïve Sdn. Bhd. had performed its work
satisfactorily.
In view of the non-payment, Naïve Sdn. Bhd. has terminated the agreement and removed its
equipment from the land.
(a) Naïve Sdn. Bhd. now seeks your advice on what remedies are available to it in
respect of work done. (20 marks)
(b) Would it have made a difference to your advice in paragraph (a) above, and to the
possible remedies available to Naïve Sdn. Bhd. in respect of work done, if there
had been no written agreement? (10 marks)
(c) Draft a Statement of Claim for Naïve Sdn. Bhd. against Dubious Mines Sdn. Bhd.
based on your advice in paragraph (a) above. (20 marks)
9
2014 July
2014 July
Syarikat Plastic King Sdn. Bhd. (the Buyer) company based in Shah Alam entered into a written
contract with Syarikat Taketime Sdn. Bhd. (the Seller) a company based in Shah Alam, for the
purchase and delivery of machinery for tape manufacturing and other plastic products. The
value of the machinery being purchased was agreed at RM1, 600,000/- . It was expressly agreed
that the said machines would be supplied on or before 8.1.2014 by the Seller.
In consideration of the same the Buyer paid a sum of RM1, 000,000/- with the balance to be
paid on delivery of the machinery. The machinery was not delivered on the stipulated time and
parties entered into negotiations and by a letter dated 10.1.2014, the Buyer stipulated to the
Seller that the machines must be delivered by the 13.1.2014.
The Seller again failed to meet the deadline. The Buyer has terminated the contract. The Seller
has refused to accept the same as time was no longer the essence of the contract as the Buyer
had waived the same after the first deadline had passed and are threatening to forfeit the sum
of RM1,000,000/- .
The Buyer now seeks your advice:
(a) Advise on the causes of action available to the Buyer. (20 marks)
(b) Would it make a difference to your advice in (a) if the Buyer had not written to
the Seller after the first deadline for delivery had passed. (10 marks)
(c) Settle a Statement of Claim for the Buyer crafted on the facts given to you.
(20 marks)
10
2014 October
2014 October
Waterman Sdn. Bhd. (“Waterman”) is a supplier of distilled water. Maleficent Trading Sdn.
Bhd. (“Maleficent”) engages Waterman for the supply of distilled water. Maleficent verbally
tells Waterman that the distilled water is for Elsa Restaurant Sdn. Bhd. (“Elsa”). Maleficent
places the order for the distilled water by issuing a Purchase Order to Waterman with express
instructions that it is to be delivered to Elsa. Upon receipt of Maleficent’s Purchase Order
Waterman would then issue Maleficent an Invoice. Thereafter, Waterman will deliver the
distilled water based on Maleficent’s said Purchase Order. Payment will then be banked into
Waterman’s account within a week. This business transaction went on for several months.
On 3.1.2014 Maleficent issues Waterman Sdn. Bhd. the following Purchase Order:
11
2014 October
As previously done, Waterman then issues an Invoice pursuant to the Maleficent’s Purchase
Order. Waterman’s Invoice is reproduced below:
Waterman delivers the said 200,000 bottles of distilled water to Elsa on 17.1.2014 and Elsa
acknowledges receipt by signing Waterman’s Delivery Order as reproduced below:
12
2014 October
A week after the said delivery Waterman still does not receive payment from Maleficent and
Waterman’s Account Manager, Charles Lee (“Charles”) decides to approach Maleficent’s
Marketing Manager, Amy Samad (“Amy”) directly to demand for immediate payment. Upon
being confronted by Charles from Waterman, Amy tells Charles that Maleficent did not receive
payment from Elsa and that since the distilled water bottles that were supplied by Waterman
were actually Elsa, Waterman should claim payment from Elsa.
Waterman is now confused as to who should pay the RM1, 500,000.00 – for the 200,000 bottles
of distilled water and decides to come to you for legal advice.
(a) Advise Waterman of their rights and cause or causes of actions available to them.
(20 marks)
(b) If Waterman had refused to deliver the 200,000 bottles of distilled water to Elsa
Restaurant Sdn. Bhd. could Elsa Restaurant Sdn. Bhd. compel Waterman to do
so based on Purchase Order No. 123? (10 marks)
(c) Draft a Statement of Claim for Waterman Industries Sdn. Bhd. based on your
advice in paragraph (a) above. (20 marks)
13
2015 July
2015 July
Mr. and Mrs. Richmond were desirous of purchasing a beach front property in Port Dickson,
They came across an advertisement of a housing project which offered for sale bungalow
houses with a private beach in Port Dickson called “Beach Homes”. Amongst other things, the
Beach Homes advertisement stated that the housing project was a gated community and came
with a club house. Mr. and Mrs. Richmond were very excited and went to see the developer of
the said Beach Homes housing project, Sure thing Development Sdn. Bhd. (“Surething”).
Surething gave Mr. and Mrs. Raymond a copy of their brochure which contents are the same
as the advertisement Mr. and Mrs. Richmond saw.
Mr. and Mrs Richmond subsequently entered into a Sale and Purchase Agreement with
Surething (“Sale & Purchase Agreement”) which contained, inter alia, the following salient
terms:
Developer / Vendor : Surething Development Sdn. Bhd.

Purchaser : Mr. and Mrs. Raymond
Purchase Price : RM12, 000,000 / -
Property : Unit 123, Bungalow (Design A – Private Beach)
Delivery of Vacant Possession : Two (2) years from the date of the Sale and
Purchase Agreement
Late payment Charges (Purchaser) : The Purchaser shall pay the Developer/Vendor
10% per annum on the Purchase Price for any late
payment due to the Developer/Vendor
Late Delivery (Developer/Vendor) : The Developer/Vendor shall pay 10% per annum
on the Purchase Price calculated from the date
vacant possession is to be delivered until the date
vacant possession is actually delivered.
Additional Facility : Club House which will be completed six (6)
Months after the delivery of vacant possession of
the Property
Club Membership : The Purchaser and their immediate family will be
given free membership of the Club House for 1
year and thereafter the Purchaser will be entitled
to a 50% discount on the Club’s membership fee.
Mr. and Mrs. Richmond signed the Sale and Purchase Agreement on 1.1.2008 and it was dated
the same day. Thereafter, Mr. and Mrs. Richmond took a bank loan from Goliath Bank. Bhd.
to finance the purchase of the Property.
Progressive payments were made on a timely manner by Goliath Bank Bhd. to Surething based
on the stages of completion of the bungalow house purchased by Mr. and Mrs. Richmond. Mr.
and Mrs. Richmond serviced the loan by Goliath Bank Bhd. and duly pay the monthly
instalments.
However, when the final payment of the Purchase Price was made to Surething on 20.12.2009,
Mr. and Mrs. Richmond received a letter from Surething dated 31.12.2009 which contents are
as follows:
14
2015 July
15
2015 July
16
2015 July
Mr. and Mrs. Richmond are furious at Surething’s letter and have written to Surething
demanding that Surething compensate them for any damages and/or losses incurred by them
arising from the delay in delivering vacant possession of the Property. They also demanded
that Surething build the Club House.
Surething has rejected Mr. And Mrs. Richmond’s demand and reiterated the contents of the
letter dated 31.12.2009. Surething further threatened Mr. And Mrs. Richmond that they will
charge Mr. and Mrs. Richmond with the additional costs that Surething has incurred if Mr. and
Mrs. Richmond still insist on their demands.
Vacant possession of the Property was finally delivered on 2.1.2011 but up 1.1.2012 the Club
House still remains partially constructed and has been left that way.
Mr. and Mrs. Richmond want to be compensated for the damages and/or losses they have
incurred and want to use the Club House but are not able to. At the same time, Mr. and Mrs.
Richmond are also fearful of the additional costs that Surething may charge them if they make
a claim against Surething. Therefore, Mr. and Mrs. Richmond have decided to seek your
professional legal advice and assistance on the matter.
(a) Advise Mr. and Mrs. Richmond of their rights and whether they have a cause or
causes of action against Surething Development Sdn. Bhd. including the reliefs, if
any, available to Mr. and Mrs. Richmond. (20 marks)
17
2015 July
(b) Would your answer be different if Surething Development Sdn. Bhd. had
terminated the Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 1.1.2008 on 31.12.2009 and
refunded the monies already paid for the purchase of the Property by Mr. and
Mrs. Richmond based on the same grounds stated in their letter dated 31.12.2009?
(10 marks)
(c) Draft a Statement of Claim for Mr. and Mrs. Richmond based on your advice in
18
2015 November
2015 November
Westlife Electronics Sdn. Bhd. (“Westlife Electronics”) is a seller of electronics and electrical
products in Shah Alam, Selangor. On 1.1.2014, Fast & Furious Sdn. Bhd. (“Fast & Furious”)
calls Westlife Electronics and makes an order which details are as follows:
1. 500 units of the 42 inch flat screen, Xtreme brand television sets;
2. Date of Delivery 1.2.2014;
3. Delivery address : Fast & Furious Sdn. Bhd.
No.3, Jalan Cepat 5, 50000 Shah Alam
In the same telephone conversation Westlife Electronics informs Fast & Furious that the 42
inch Xtreme brand televisions sets cost RM2,000/- per unit amounting to RM1,000,000/- for
500 units and the delivery charge is RM700/-. Fast & Furious agrees to this and further informs
Westlife Electronics that they require the television sets for an exhibition which was to be held
at the end of February, 2014.
On 30.1.2014 Westlife Electronics sends an email to Fast & Furious informing them that due
to some problems Westlife Electronics is facing with its overseas supplier, there will be a delay
in delivering the 500 Xtreme brand televisions sets to Fast & Furious and that the delivery can
only be made on 7.2.2014.
Fast & Furious is very upset and immediately calls Westlife Electronics to compliant about the
delay which Fast & Furious feels is unbecoming of a reputable electronic and electrical
company. Fast & Furious is especially disappointed because this has never happened in Fast &
Furious’ previous dealings with Westlife Electronics.
The 500 Xtreme brand televisions sets were delivered to Fast & Furious at 9 a.m. on 7.2.2014
together with an invoice for the sum of RM100,700/-.
However, at 12p.m. on 8.2.2014, Westlife Electronics receives a telephone call from Fast &
Furious refusing to pay Westlife Electronics’ invoice on the basis that the agreement is
terminated because Westlife Electronics was not able to deliver the said television sets on
1.2.2014 as agreed. Fast & Furious further says that there is no written agreement between Fast
& Furious and Westlife Electronics to bind parties. Fast & Furious also threatens to sue
Westlife Electronics for causing damage to their business when Westlife Electronics failed to
deliver the television sets on time on 1.1.2014.
Westlife Electronics calls you for advice.

(a) Advise Westlife Electronics Sdn. Bhd. of their rights and whether they have a
cause or causes of action against Fast & Furious Sdn. Bhd. , the reliefs, if any,
available to Westlife Electronics Sdn. Bhd. and the threats made by Fast and
Furious Sdn. Bhd. to Westlife Electronics Sdn. Bhd. (20 marks)
(b) Would your answer be different if after Fast & Furious Sdn. Bhd. received the
email from Westlife Electronics Sdn. Bhd. on 30.1.2014, they then inform Westlife
Electronics Sdn. Bhd. that if the televiisons sets are nit delivered on 1.2.2014 the
agreement will be terminated? (10 marks)
(c) Draft a Statement of Claim for either Westlife Electronics Sdn. Bhd. or Fast &
Furious Sdn. Bhd. based on your in paragraph 1(a) above. (20 marks)
19
2016 August
2016 August
Bigtime Development Sdn. Bhd. (“Bigtime Development”) is a developer whose registered

and business address is at No.1, Jalan Besar, Bangsar, 50100 Kuala Lumpur. Bigtime
Development was desirous of purchasing a plot of agricultural land in Selangor (“the said
Land”) for the purpose of developing a residential housing project. The owner of the said Land
is Town Properties Sdn. Bhd. (“Town Properties”).
Town Properties had advertised the said Land for sale at the price of RM200,000,000.00.
Bigtime Development entered into negotiations with Town Properties for the purchase of the
said Land. After several meetings Town Properties finally lowered the purchase price of the
said Land to RM195, 000,000.00.
Though Bigtime Development was pleased with the discounted purchase price, they were
reluctant to immediately enter into a sale and purchase agreement unless they were sure they
could get approval from the Land Administrator for the conversion and subdivision of the said
Land for their housing project.
Bigtime Development then went to see Sneaky, a property consultant, who had experience in
applying for conversion and subdivision of lands in Selangor and knows most of the officers
in the Selangor Land Office. Sneaky operates from his house at No.5, Jalan Merbuk, 50350
Kuala Lumpur.
Satisfied that Sneaky had the required skill, Bigtiem Development engaged Sneaky to assist
them in applying for the conversion and subdiviison of the said Land for Bigtime
Development’s housing project. Sneaky’s professional fee is RM1,500,000.00 of which
Rm250,000.00 is to be paid in advance and the balance after the work was completed. Bigtime
Development verbally agreed to this.
Bigtime Development then entered into a Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 1 February 2015
with Town Properties. Bigtime Development obtained a loan from Goliath Bank and duly paid
the full purchase price of the said Land amounting to RM195,000,000.00. Thereafter, the said
Land was transferred to Bigtime Development on 1 July 2015.
Sneaky was paid RM250,000.00 by Bigtime Development and he subsequently helped Bigtime
Development to prepare the relevant documentation for Bigtime Development’s application
for conversion and subdivision of the said Land to the Land Administrator. Sneaky also
attended several meetings with officers at the Selangor Land Office and liased with them on
Bigtime Development’s behalf.
Finally, on 1 March 2016 Bigtime Development obtained the required apporval from the Land
Administrator and was able to proceed with their housing project.
When Sneaky demanded for the balance RM1,250,000.00 of his professional fee on 1 March
2016 Bigtime Development refused to pay.
20
2016 August
Despite getting the said approval from the Land Administrator Bigtime Development was not
happy with Sneaky’s services and claimed that Bigtime Development did all the work and
obtained the said approval on their own. Bigtime Development further argued that even if
Sneaky helped them obtain the said apporval, it was done through “suspicious” means.
Sneaky is furious and said to Bigtime Development that he did no such thing and that his
services were above board.
Bigtime Development still refused to pay Sneaky and instead demanded that Sneaky refund
the RM250,000.00 which Bigtime Development had paid Sneaky.
Sneaky decides to seek your professional legal advice and assitance on the matter.
(a) Advise Sneaky of his rights and whether he has a cause or causes of action against
Bigtime Development including the reliefs, if any, available to Sneaky.
(20 marks)
(b) Would your answer be different if Bigtime Development did not get the apporval
from the Land Administrtaor for the conversion and subdivision of the said Land?
Please provide explanation for your answer. (10 marks)
(c) Draft a Statement of Claim for Sneaky based on your advice in paragraph 1(a)
above. (20 marks)
21
2016 November
2016 November
Clark Kent (Clark) is the registered proprietor of a double storey bungalow house which comes
with a swimming pool and gazebo at No.1, Jalan Pelakon, Kota Damansara, 75000 Selangor.
Clark wanted to sell his house and advertised it for sale for RM5, 000,000.00. Several months
went by and no one seemed interested in buying Clark’s house.
Then one (1) day Lann Lang (Lana) who lives at No.15A, Jalan Bandar, 50150 Kuala Lumpur
comes across Clark’s advertisement and asks to view the house. After seeing the house on 31
December 2015 Lana immediately liked the house and agreed to buy the house.
Not wanting to waste time, Clark issued a letter to Lana on the same day that is 31 December
2015 which contained the following salient terms:
“1. Property : Double Storey Bungalow House at No.1, Jalan Pelakon,

Kota Damansara, 75000 Selangor (on as is basis).
2. Purchase Price : RM5, 000,000.00.
3. Earnest Deposit : five percent (5%) of Purchase Price (RM250, 000.00)

upon signing of this Booking Proforma.
4. A further payment of five percent (5%) of the Purchase Price (RM250, 000.00) upon
execution of the Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA).
5. Balance Purchase Price of RM4, 500,000.00 to be paid within three (3) months from
the date of the SPA.
6. Time is of the essence.
7. This offer is subject to the preparation of a formal SPA which is to be executed within
two (2) weeks from the date of this letter.”
Lana signed the letter on 31 December 2015 and paid Clark RM250, 000.00 cash. She then
informed Clark that she will be applying for a loan to pay the Balance Purchase Price.
Despite applying to several banks, Lana was not able to get a loan and the SPA that was
prepared by Lana’s solicitors was still not executed on 14 January 2016.
However, Lana was still interested in buying the house and paid Clark another RM250, 000.00
on 14 January 2016. Lana told Clark that the SPA had not been finalised yet because she wanted
to add a clause that Clark should have the house painted as it needs a coat of paint but Clark
rejected this by saying, “this is not part of the deal”.
Clark accepted the additional RM250, 000.00 paid by Lana but did not say or did anything
about the extension requested by Lana. However, on 17 January 2016 Clark warned Lana that
he will terminate the sale if the SPA was not signed by Lana by 21 January 2016.
22
2016 November
Lana was not able to get a loan and on 21 January 2016 the SPA was still not signed by Lana
though it was already signed by Clark.
Lana informed Clark that she no longer wanted to buy the house and demanded that Clark
refunded her RM500, 000.00. She also told Clark there was no agreement and if Clark did not
refund the RM500, 000.00 she paid Clark as a refundable deposit, she would sue Clark.
Lana then directed her solicitor to send Clark a letter of demand for the refund of the RM500,
000.00.
Clark was confused. He would like to still proceed with the sale of his house to Lana but at the
same time he wonders whether he was right to forfeit the RM500, 000.00 paid by Lana and
terminate the sale.
Clark goes to see you for your advice and assistance.
(a) Advise Clark of his rights and whether he has a cause or causes of action against
Lana including the reliefs, if any, available to him. (20 marks)
(b) Would your answer be different if the letter issued by Clark to Lana dated 31
December 2015 does not contain a time period of three (3) months for the Balance
Purchase Price of the property to be paid as provided in item no.5 of the said letter
and Lana does not make the second payment of RM250, 000.00 on 14 January
2016?
Please provide explanation for your answer. (10 marks)
(c) Draft a Statement of Claim for Clark based on your advice in paragraph 1(a)
above. (20 marks)
23
2017 August
2017 August
Scha Clements (Scha) is the owner of a chain of bookshops in Kuala Lumpur and Johor Bahru
called “Bookworm”. As her business grew, Scha decided to open a large Bookworm branch in
Shah Alam.
Scha came across three (3) shop lots for sale at No.1, 2 and 3, Jalan Aerobik 3/5, Section 15,
Shah Alam (Property) which she found ideal for her new bookshop. She met the owner of the
Property, Albert Lim (Albert), and after several negotiations Albert sent the following letter to
Scha:
“Albert Lim
No.123, Jalan Bangkung 5
Setapak
53300 Kuala Lumpur
12 January 2016
To: Ms Scha Clements

No. 31A, Jalan Besar
50550 Kuala Lumpur
Dear Ms Scha Clements,
OFFER FOR SALE OF LOTS NO. 1, 2 AND 3, JALAN AEROBIK 3/5, SECTION 15, SHAH
ALAM
it is currently in);
24
2017 August
Scha received Albert’s letter on 17 January 2016 and called him on 18 January 2016 accepting
Albert’s offer as contained in the said letter.
On 21 January 2016, Scha paid Albert RM5, 000.000.00 Scha’s solicitor prepared the draft
Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA) and sent it to Albert’s solicitors. Several drafts of the SPA
were exchanged between Scha’s solicitors and Albert’s solicitors until a final draft SPA was
prepared and sent to Albert’s solicitors on 15 April 2016. The final draft SPA required Albert’s
solicitors to provide some of Albert’s personal particulars before it could be finalised.
Albert was frustrated that it was taking so long for the SPA to be finalised and decided to look
around for another potential purchaser. On 11 April 2016, Albert received an offer from a
company called Gold Trade Sdn Bhd (Gold Trade) to purchase the Property at RM60,
000,000.00. Albert told his solicitors to hold the final draft SPA between Scha and him and not
to finalise it.
In the meantime, Scha managed to obtain a loan from Sterling Bank to finance the purchase of
the Property and sometime in March 2016, Scha informed Albert that she would be making
payment of the balance purchase price soon. On 20 April 2016, Scha sent Albert a banker’s
draft for the sum of RM45, 000,000.00 being the balance purchase price of the Property.
Albert decided to sell the Property to Gold Trade instead and informed Scha on 21 April 2016
that he would be returning the banker’s draft as there was no concluded agreement between
them because the formal SPA was not executed as at 20 April 2016.
Scha was incredibly upset and argued with Albert that she paid him the balance purchase price
within the ninety (90) days period stipulated in Albert’s letter and that she has further
committed herself to a loan from Sterling Bank which repayments she would have to make.
25
2017 August
On hearing this, Albert became angry and told Scha that it made no difference that she paid
him within the ninety (90) days period as there was no contract between them and that if she
did not treat this matter as closed, he would forfeit her deposit of RM5,000,000.00. Albert gave
Scha forty-eight (48) hours to decide.
Scha was angry and confused. She was also worried at the same time that she may not get her
deposit back if she were to pursue the matter further. She immediately made an appointment
to see you to obtain you legal advice and assistance.
(a) Advise Scha Clements of her rights and whether she has a cause or causes of action
against Albert Lim including the reliefs, if any, available to her. Please also
address in your answer any possible liability that Scha Clements could face arising
from the facts of the case. (20 marks)
(b) Would your answer be different if Albert Lim refused to accept the banker’s draft
Scha Clements gave him on 20 April 2016? Please provided explanation for your
answer. (10 marks)
(c) Draft a Statement of Claim based on your advice in paragraph 1(a) above.
(20 marks)
26
2017 November
2017 November
27
2017 November
Faced with these problems, Ahmad rushes to see you for your legal advice.
(a) Advise Ahmad Salim of his rights and whether he has a cause or causes of action
against Harris Daud including the reliefs, if any, available to him. Please also
address in your answer any possible liability that Ahmad Salim could face based
on the facts of the case. (20 marks)
(b) Would your answer be different if Harris Daud had informed ABS Bank of the
details of his agreement with Ahmad Salim? Please provide explanation for your
answer. (10 marks)
(c) Draft a Statement of Claim for Ahmad Salim based on your advice in paragraph
1(a) above. (20 marks)
28
2018 July
2018 July
29
2018 July
30
2018 July
31
2018 July
(a) Advise Kasim Boleh of his rights and whether he has a cause or causes of action
against Z Nation Bhd including the reliefs, if any, available to him. (20 marks)
(b) Would your answer to paragraph (a) be different if Z Nation Bhd did not engage
Murah Sekali Sdn Bhd to build the badminton court and decided not to build the
badminton court at all? Please provide explanation for your answer. (10 marks)
(c) Draft a Statement of Claim for Kasim Boleh based on your advice in your
32
2018 November
2018 November
Jetson Oil Sdn. Bhd. (Jetson Oil) is an oil and gas company. Jetson Oil intends to purchase
certain types of oil from Pesto Enterprise (Pesto), an oil importer, and sends the following
Purchase Order to Pesto:
33
2018 November
34
2018 November
35
2019 July
2019 July
36
2019 November
2019 November
Ada Properties Sdn. Bhd., (Company No. 78910-X) a company incorporated in Malaysia and
having its registered office address at No.50, Jalan Ikan Bilis, Selayang, 68100 Batu Caves,
Selangor is the registered owner of a piece of land held under HS (D) No.786, Lot No. 452,
Mukim of Selayang, District of Batu, State of Selangor (hereinafter referred to as “the said
land”). Ada Properties Sdn. Bhd. wanted to find a buyer for the said land. By word of mouth,
this reached the ear of your clients, Gullible Sdn. Bhd. (Company No. 2875-Y) a company
incorporated in Malaysia and having its registered office address at Lot 23-C, 2nd Floor,
Bangunan HuaYang, 68000 Ampang, Selangor, who were desperate to purchase a property of
that nature. Your client and the Managing Director of Ada Properties Sdn. Bhd. entered into
negotiations for the purchase of the said land. Your client showed documents to Ada Properties
Sdn. Bhd. of the urgent need to purchase the said land so that the factory could be constructed
to enable your client to meet existing orders for their products which stood at RM1.5 million.
A proforma of purchase was prepared by Ada Properties Sdn. Bhd. and the same is set out
below:
Subject to Contract
37
2019 November
On the top of the document, was stamped by Ada Properties Sdn. Bhd. “subject to contract”.
Your clients gave up looking for the similar properties and arranged for funding to purchase
the said land. These negotiation took place in April, 2019 culminating in the proforma of
purchase on the 29th April, 2019. On the 27th April, 2019, Ada Properties Sdn. Bhd. was
approached by a Company known as Gazump Sdn. Bhd. to purchase the said land for a price
of RM100, 000.00 more. On the 30th April, 2019, Ada Properties Sdn. Bhd. entered into a Sale
and Purchase Agreement to sell the land to Gazump Sdn. Bhd.
38
2019 November
On the same date, Ada Properties Sdn. Bhd. wrote to your client as follows:
Your client seek your advice as to the possible causes of action that they may have.
The loss of the said land has caused damage as they have no land available to immediately start
their business and orders for product amounting to RM1.5 million have been lost, a fact Ada
Properties Sdn. Bhd. was fully aware of.
You are required to:
(a) Advise your clients on the cause/causes of action that they may have against Ada
Properties Sdn. Bhd. (20 marks)
(b) Discuss briefly whether the cause of action of Specific Performance is available for
your client. (10 marks)
(c) Draft a Statement of Claim for your clients against Ada Properties Sdn. Bhd. if
your advice is to proceed against them. (20 marks)
39
2020 (March 2021)
2020 (March 2021)
The Government of Malaysia had planned to construct a bridge to replace the existing bridge
on the river that strides Kuala Terengganu (the bridge project). A locally incorporated company
known as Geta Projects Sdn. Bhd. (the said company) were keen to be awarded the bridge
project. A gentleman known as Dato’ Anthony Judas approached the said company and assured
the managing director and members of the Board of Directors of the said company that because
of his close relations with the Minister in charge of the bridge project, he was able to secure
the bridge project from the Government of Malaysia to the said company.
The said company executed an irrevocable letter of undertaking, that in consideration of his
services rendered to secure the said project, Dato’ Anthony Judas would be paid a sum of RM10
million by the said company. The letter of undertaking provided that the sum of RM10 million
was to be paid upon the letter of award being issued to the said company. The letter of
undertaking was dated 2 January 2020. On the 16 January 2020, the letter of award pertaining
to the bridge project was issued to the said company.
There was a public outcry against the award and reports were lodged by several parties to the
Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission. On the 24 January 2020, the Government of Malaysia
cancelled the said letter of award to the said company.
You are instructed that the parties do not dispute the letter of undertaking. The said company
now seeks your views as to a claim for a refund of the RM10 million from Dato’ Anthony
Judas:
Appendix A : Letter of Undertaking
(a) Advise your client on the cause/causes of action against Dato’ Anthony Judas for
the refund of the RM10 million. (20 marks)
(b) Discuss briefly if a contract is entered between parties based on misrepresentation,

what are the options available to the innocent party? (10 marks)
(c) Settle a statement of claim for your client against Dato’ Anthony Judas based on
your advice. (20 marks)
40
2020 (March 2021)
APPENDIX A
LETTER OF UNDERTAKING
Geta Projects Sdn. Bhd.
To
Dato’ Anthony Judas
(NRIC No)
Petaling Jaya, Selangor
(The Procurer)
In consideration of the Procurer procuring and securing the bridge project, the
said company could pay a sum of RM10 million to the Procurer forthwith upon
the issue of the letter of award to the said company.
This undertaking shall remain valid so long as the award and the project remains
valid and subsisting and should the award be withdrawn and/or terminated
and/or the project is cancelled for any reason whatsoever, the aforesaid sum of
RM10 million shall be refunded free of interest to us.
41
Dec 2021
[CLP 2020 Supplementary Examination]
2020 (December 2021)
Answer ALL parts of this question.

By a contract in writing (“the contract”) Hilang Barang Sdn. Bhd. deposited with Tak Cekap
Sdn. Bhd. goods for Tak Cekap Sdn. Bhd. to provide security services at its warehouse at 38
Jalan Melati Gombak, 53100 Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur. The goods
in question were computer accessories and parts valued at RM1, 000,000.00.
Hilang Barang Sdn. Bhd. carries out business as manufacture and distributor of flexible plastic
packaging products, and Tak Cekap Sdn. Bhd. is a provider and consultant of security services.
Under the said Contract, the said Tak Cekap Sdn. Bhd. was to provide Security to safeguard
the goods of Hilang Barang Sdn. Bhd. This deposit of goods was on 18 January 2020.
On the 20th day of January 2020, a theft/burglary occurred at the said premises resulting in the
total loss of Hilang Barang Sdn. Bhd. goods.
Hilang Barang Sdn. Bhd. commissioned an adjuster’s report to determine whether or not there
was any element of liability on the part of Tak Cekap Sdn. Bhd. The adjusters report found
essentially:
 The guards employed by Tak Cekap Sdn. Bhd. had full control of the premises and yet the
theft took place.
 The theft could not have taken place without the use of small lorries which would have
caused a lot of noise which should have alerted the guards.
 All this points to the negligence of the guards of Tak Cekap Sdn. Bhd.
The stand of Tak Cekap Sdn. Bhd. is that they were not liable, and they rely on the exemption
clause appearing in the said Contract.
42
ATC School of Laws
Dec 2021
[CLP 2020 Supplementary Examination]
The said Contract is as follows:
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into between Hilang Barang Sdn. Bhd. with registered address
at 69, Jalan Segambut Pusat, Taman Segambut, 51200 Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan
Kuala Lumpur and (hereinafter referred to as “the Customer”) and Tak Cekap Sdn. Bhd. with
registered address at Lot 2168, Jalan Bukit Bintang, Bukit Bintang, 50200 Kuala Lumpur,
Wilayah Persekutuan and (hereinafter referred to as “the Company”).
Now it is agreed as follows
(1) In consideration of the Customer paying a sum of RM30, 000.00 to store its goods in
the company’s premises, aforesaid the Company will provide security services to
ensure the safety of said goods.
(2) The Company shall not be liable for any loss suffered by the Customer due to burglary,
theft, fire or any other cause whatsoever, unless such loss is solely caused by the
negligence of the Company’s own employees acting in the course of their employment.
(3) Both the Company and the Customer acknowledge the nature of the goods and its value
deposited in the Company’s premises is RM1, 000.000.00
(4) This agreement is valid for a period of 3 months.
Dated 14th January 2020
(a) Advise your client Hilang Barang Sdn. Bhd. on the cause of action against Tak
Cekap Sdn. Bhd. (20 marks)
(b) Discuss the effect of Section 29 of the Contracts Acts on such exemption clauses.
(10 marks)
(c) Settle a statement of claim for your client against Tak Cekap Sdn. Bhd. based on
your advice. (20 marks)
ooOoo
43
ATC School of Laws
Apr 2022
[CLP 2021 Main Examination]
2021 (April 2022)
1. Answer ALL parts of this question.

Mr. Derrick Gullible and Mrs. Anna Gullible were looking to purchase a home. Mrs Anna
Gullible had a tendency to suffer from minor depression and serenity of surroundings were very
important for her. After scouring the market, the couple came across promotional brochures for
a small and exclusive housing project of fifteen (15) bungalows priced at Ringgit Malaysia 1.5
million per bungalow in Kuala Lumpur. The couple attended a promotional sales campaign of
the developer ‘Easy Come Easy Go Sdn. Bhd.’ The marketing manager of the developer, Mr.
Denzel Lim made the following representations to Mr. & Mrs. Gullible and the other
participants at the sales session, namely:
(a) The housing estate would be manned by 24 hours security with twelve (12) security
guards working on shifts.
(b) An up to date fully operational CCTV system with cameras located all over the
perimeter of the estate and each bungalow to be covered with nothing less than six (6)
to seven (7) cameras.
(c) Each bungalow would come with a fully operational burglar and fire alarm system.
(d) The guard house for the security which was to be built at the only entrance to the estate
would monitor, strictly, movements in and out of visitors and others whilst residents
would be provided with entry passes.
Mr. and Mrs. Gullible being satisfied with these representations and on that basis signed a sales
and purchase agreement to purchase one bungalow lot which was to be completed in 24 months.
After delivery of vacant possession of the bungalow lot and after Mr. and Mrs. Gullible moved
in, they were aghast in the short period of two (2) weeks following:
(i) The guard house was manned by only (2) guards who could not be located most of the
time.
(ii) The burglar and fire alarms systems in Mr. & Mrs. Gullible’s bungalow unit were not
functioning despite repeated complaints to Easy Come and Easy Go Sdn. Bhd.
(iii) Mrs. Anna Gullible was under heavy stress, as the lack of security at the guard house
caused motorbike riders coming into their estate and carrying out illegal motorcycle
races.
After a month the situation became unbearable for Mr. and Mrs. Gullible and they were forced
To move out of their bungalow and eventually sold it for a loss i.e. Ringgit Malaysia
800,000.00. Mrs Gullible suffered a nervous breakdown and had to be treated which cost the
Gullibles Ringgit Malaysia 300,000.00.
You are required to:
(a) Advise your clients, Mr. & Mrs. Gullible on the cause/causes of action available
against Easy Come Easy Go Sdn. Bhd. and the damages they can claim
(20 marks)
(b) Discuss briefly, the concept of misrepresentation in contract and its effect on
contracts entered as a consequence of misrepresentations.
(10 marks)
(c) Draft a statement of claim for your clients, Mr. and Mrs. Gullible against Easy
Come Easy Go Sdn. Bhd. if your advice is to proceed with an action against them.
(20 marks)
ooOoo
44
ATC School of Laws
Oct 2022
1. Answer ALL parts of this question.

James Orpheus (“Orpheus”) is an extremely wealthy man who is a resident in Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia. He is an avid collector of paintings and has amassed a number of well-known and
expensive paintings by old masters. People in the know are in awe of his collection, and
Orpheus has built a reputation among them of being to acquire the rarest and most highly sought
for paintings.
In late 2019, Orpheus heard from highly reliable sources that the very famous painting, “The
Concert” by Johannes Vermeer (“The Concert”), reported to be missing years earlier, had been
found in North Korea. He was keen to acquire this piece of art and contacted a well-known art
dealer, Michael Cronos (“Cronos”). Cronos runs his business from his base in Singapore and
has business interests all over the world. Cronos owns several properties in and outside
Malaysia. Among others, he owns a three-storey detached house in Kuala Lumpur valued at
RM9 million, a 10,000 square foot residential property in District 9, Singapore as well as a
house at the Peak, Hong Kong.
In a meeting between Orpheus and Cronos on 9 December 2019, Orpheus informed Cronos that
he was very interested in acquiring “The Concert”. Cronos informed Orpheus that he had no
issues with travelling to North Korea and would reach out to his associates in North Korea to
purchase the art piece on behalf of Orpheus.
Upon hearing this, Orpheus immediately agreed to engage Cronos to acquire “The Concert” on
his behalf. Orpheus wanted to become the owner of “The Concert” as quickly as possible
because he did not want others to get their hands on the painting first. Orpheus said to Cronos,
“Look, Mr. Cronos, I want to have “The Concert” as soon as possible.
Because of the urgency, I am prepared to pay you a commission of RM15
million if you can get it for me. I am prepared to pay up to RM100 million
for the painting itself. However, if you are unable to secure the said art
piece by the end of September 2020, I will no longer require your services
and shall engage someone else to make the acquisition on my behalf.”
Cronos replied,
“Mr. Orpheus, how sure are you that the painting in North Korea is the
original painting by Johannes Vermeer? Nevertheless, I am certain that I
will be able to procure the said art piece that you say is in North Korea for
you. I can have it delivered to you by the end of September 2020. I am
happy to agree with your offer to pay me RM15 million for my services,
such payment to be made upon delivery of the said art piece to you.”
Orpheus replied,
“I have it from my sources who are trustworthy that the painting North
Korea is the original Vermeer “The Concert”. I am sure that my sources
are reliable.”
The two men shook hands on the above. Cronos then prepared to travel to North Korea. Cronos
purchased his travel tickets and obtained the necessary approvals and visa to travel to North
Korea. He had planned to leave for North Korea on 10 March 2020.
45
ATC School of Laws
Oct 2022
Alas! The global COVID-19 health crisis occurred in February 2020, resulting in a global
lockdown with very strict travel restrictions. As a result of this crisis, being unable to travel,
Cronos’ business activities suffered. His cash position dwindled very quickly.
Day by day, the COVID-19 situation did not seem to improve. By August 2020, Cronos was
getting desperate. He needed substantial funds to ensure that he could continue to maintain his
living standards without needing to sell off his assets. In desperation, Cronos devised a plan
which entailed the making of a forged copy of “The Concert”. He paid an art forger RM1.5
million to re-create a painting identical to “The Concert”.
On 15 August 2020, in a telephone call, Cronos falsely informed Orpheus that he was in North
Korea and had managed to locate “The Content” painting. Cronos represented (also falsely) that
the seller was willing to accept USD20 million (RM90 million) as payment. Cronos also said
that if a sum of RM90 million was to be paid into his account at his Maybank account in
Singapore, he would ensure that the painting would be procured and delivered to Malaysia. He
also showed Orpheus a photograph of the purported painting which he said was taken in North
Korea.
As he was convinced that Cronos had secured the painting, on 17 August 2020, Orpheus duly
paid RM90 million into Cronos’ account. On 20 August 2020, Cronos delivered the forged
painting to Orpheus. Convinced that he had finally gained ownership of “The Concert” by
Vermeer, Orpheus happily paid Cronos RM15 million for his services and then proudly
displayed the painting in his reading room of his Kuala Lumpur home.
Recently, on 12 September 2022, Orpheus hosted a dinner for the high society at his home in
Kuala Lumpur. Among the guests was Charles Windsor, the Chairman of Sotheby’s. Sotheby’s
is a famous fine arts company and an auction house. Charles Windsor is also an expert in old
master paintings.
Charles Windsor was impressed when he initially saw the purported “The Concert” painting in
Orpheus reading room. However, upon closer inspection, he noted that the brushstrokes differed
from the original “The Concert. Charles Windsor then shared his concerns with Orpheus about
the authenticity of the painting. Windsor said,
“Mr. Orpheus, I believe that this painting is a forgery. If this is so, this
painting is probably worth about RM2, 000.00. The original painting
would have been valued at RM150 million and RM200 million.”
Orpheus was livid. He immediately called up and spoke to Cronos over the telephone
demanding for the return of the RM105 million paid for the painting and for Cronos’
commission. However, Cronos refused to entertain this demand, saying that the he (Cronos)
never warranted that the painting that was delivered was the original “The Concert” by
Vermeer. Cronos said,
“Mr. Orpheus, you yourself had not verified the authenticity of the
painting that was kept in North Korea before asking me to buy it on your
46
ATC School of Laws
Oct 2022
behalf. I distinctly remember asking you whether this painting was the
original one.”
The very next day, Orpheus instructed his lawyers to advise him on potential legal proceedings
against Cronos to recover the RM105 million that was paid to Cronos. Orpheus also wishes to
claim damages for other losses that he might have suffered as the original painting was not
delivered to him.
(a) Discuss whether Orpheus could commence proceedings against Cronos in Malaysia, and
whether there is sufficient evidence to prove his claim against Cronos.
(20 marks)
(b) Assuming that liability is established against Cronos, discuss the remedies that are
available to Orpheus. (15 marks)
(c) Draft a Statement of Claim on behalf of Orpheus against Cronos. (15 marks)
ooOoo
47
ATC School of Laws

3b. ATC CLP - PYQs - General Paper (Contract) (2010-2022)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

3b. ATC CLP - PYQs - General Paper (Contract) (2010-2022)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[CLP] GENERAL PAPER – Contract

(c) Draft a Statement of Claim on behalf of the Seller. (10 marks)

(a) it was a 2011 model;

The Buyer now seeks your advice:

Developer / Vendor : Surething Development Sdn. Bhd.

Westlife Electronics calls you for advice.

Bigtime Development Sdn. Bhd. (“Bigtime Development”) is a developer whose registered

“1. Property : Double Storey Bungalow House at No.1, Jalan Pelakon,

2. Purchase Price : RM5, 000,000.00.

3. Earnest Deposit : five percent (5%) of Purchase Price (RM250, 000.00)

6. Time is of the essence.

Clark goes to see you for your advice and assistance.

To: Ms Scha Clements

Dear Ms Scha Clements,

You are required to:

2020 (March 2021)

Appendix A : Letter of Undertaking

(b) Discuss briefly if a contract is entered between parties based on misrepresentation,

Geta Projects Sdn. Bhd.

Answer ALL parts of this question.

Dated 14th January 2020

1. Answer ALL parts of this question.

1. Answer ALL parts of this question.

You might also like