Kerpa Singh V Bariam Singh Fact

In order to settle the debt the defendant son offer a cheque to plaintiff rm4 000 in full settlement for his father debt.

Kerpa singh v bariam singh fact. In the case of kerpa singh v bariam singh 1966 the son paid his father s debt and the court held that payment is a good consideration. The plaintiffs cash the cheque and demand for the balance of the debt. The debtor made an arrangement to settle lump sum payment by paying a lesser amount. In the case of collins v.

Pinnel s case foakes v. Performance of an existing duty. However the situation in s 64 of the malaysian contract act is a little different on this. Kerpa singh v bariam singh 1966 part payment of debt may discharge an obligation facts.

Bariam singh owed kerpa singh rm8 869 94 under the judgement debt. The defendant bariam singh owned kerpa singh as plaintiff rm 8869 94 under the judgement debt. In kerpa singh v bariam singh 1966 where the debtor took loan from the creditor. The debtor s son wrote a letter to kerpa singh offering rm4000 in full satisfaction of his father s debt and endorsed a cheque for the amount stipulating that should kerpa singh refuse to accept his proposal he must return the cheque.

It can be illustrated in the case of kerpa singh v bariam singh 1966 the debtor s son offered to give a cheque of rm4000 as full payment in order to discharge his father from a debt of rm 8650. Bs s son wrote to ks offering 4000 in full settlement of his father s debt and endorsed a cheque for the amount. Kerpa singh v bariam singh 1966 facts. The federal court ruled that as the plaintiff cash the cheque.

Bariam singh 1966 1 mlj 38 facts. For example in the case of kerpa singh v bariam singh 1966 the defendant own rm8 869. The debtor s son wrote a letter to kerpa singh providing rm 4000 to fully repay his father s debt and stated that kerpa singh should refuse to accept his offer he must return the check. Godefroy 1831 it was held that held that a person who received a subpoena to attend court is under the duty and bound to do so.

Payment of a lesser sum waiver of performance section 64 contracts act 1950 read cases. The debtor s son wrote a letter to kerpa singh offering rm4000 in full satisfaction of his father s debt and endorsed a cheque for the amount stipulating that should kerpa singh refuse to accept his proposal he must return the cheque. He stipulated that should ks refuse to accept he must return the cheque. The acceptance of the cheque in full satisfaction prevent them.

Kerpa singh v bariam singh 1966 1 mlj 38 bs owed 8 869 94 under a judgment debt. After the creditor cashed the cheque he demanded for the balance. The federal court held that since the creditor had accepted the offer by cashing the cheque and retaining the money he agreed to discharge the debtor from any further liability. Bariam singh owed kerpa singh rm8 869 94 under the judgement debt.