Law602-Tutorial Question 3

Maniam provided computer installation services for Peter's business in 2000, for which he was owed RM10,000. Despite repeated promises to pay, Peter has not settled the debt. When confronted last week, Peter said Maniam could not sue him to recover the money. As Maniam's counsel, you would advise him that the 6-year limitation period to sue for breach of contract has not expired, so he can still commence legal action against Peter.

Uploaded by

BATRISHIA BALQIS SHAHARZAMAN

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

0% found this document useful (0 votes)

43 views

Law602-Tutorial Question 3

Uploaded by

BATRISHIA BALQIS SHAHARZAMAN

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

You are on page 1/ 2

4.

2 Limitation Period

Tutorial
1. Peter runs a mini market in Bangsar. Maniam a computer programmer installed an accounting
software program for Peter's business in 2000. The cost of the installation was RM10,000. To
date Peter has not settled this amount with Maniam despite making several promises to do so.
Last week Peter met Maniam in a restaurant. When Maniam confronted him about the money,
Peter laughingly said, 'I know I owe you RM10, 000 but there is nothing that you can do about it
now. My lawyer tells me that you will not be able to sue me for it.'
As Maniam counsel what will your advice to him?

2. Pran was appointed as the executor and trustee of the will of Kapoor. Kapoor's son Rishi was the
sole beneficiary under the will. Among the assets of Kapoor was a house in Bangsar where he
resided and a terrace house in Seremban. Kapoor died on the 1st July 2000. Soon after obtaining
the grant of probate of Kapoor's will, Pran on 2nd July 2006 sold the house in Seremban for
RM750, 000 and used the money to finance his daughter's education in overseas. Rishi, who had
no knowledge of the existence of the house, has just discovered the sale of and wishes to bring an
action against Pran to recover the proceeds of the sale. He is however concerned that the action
may be time barred.

3. Law was told by Ngam who had agreed to advance him some money to sign a memorandum of
charge over his land, when it was in fact a memorandum of transfer. As a result, his land was
transferred to Ngam. Ngam had since demised, and the land was inherited to his son. Twenty
years later as he was planning an inter vivos transfer of the land to his daughter, he discovered
that he was no longer the registered proprietor of the land. He discovered this fact when he made
a formal search at the land office. He went to see the lawyer that prepared the purported
memorandum of charge that he had signed years earlier. In the beginning, the lawyer refused to
entertain him until he threatens to make a formal complaint with the Bar Disciplinary Board. The
lawyer told Law of the scheme to cheat him by Ngam. The disclosure was made two years after
Law made a search at the land office. He is planning to sue Ngam’s son to recover his title over
the land. Advise him.

4. In June 2014, K and his son L, were traveling in a Government ambulance when the ambulance
collided driven by M. K, L and M suffered severe injuries in the accident. K and M died as a

© Mohd Yunus Bin Abu Samah Ijazah Sarjana Muda Undang-Undang (Kep.)/LW224
Fakulti Undang-Undang, UiTM
M/Pelajaran : Civil Procedure I Tarikh Kuatkuasa : 1hb. September 2020
Kod : LAW602 No Keluaran : 1
Bahagian : 07 Muka Surat :
4.2 Limitation Period

result of their injuries in October 2014. L was a minor at the time of the accident. He was born in
2000. To date L has not commenced any legal action in respect of his injuries or K's death.
M's executor, N extracted a Grant of Probate in respect of M's estate in May 2018. L now wishes
to sue.
(i) the government of M'sia and
(ii)N as M's executor.
He wishes to claim damages for his personal injuries and also damages suffered by him in
respect of K's death
Are L's proposed claims barred by limitation? Give reasons for your advice.
Would your answer be different if K and L were traveling in a bus owned by Syarikat Bas
Selamat (here in after referred to a 'the company') and L wishes to sue the company.

5. In 2015 A obtained a judgement against B to pay A RM1.0M. The judgment includes interest at
5% per annum from the date of the judgment. In 2021 A came seeking your legal advice to
enforce the said judgment by writ of seizure and sale. Advise him.