Moot Problem Final Round (English)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL, MALAYSIA

AT PUTRAJAYA

[APPELLATE JURISDICTION]

MOOT NO. OF 2012

BETWEEN

RAHMAT BULAT SDN. BHD. APPELLANT

AND

RAJESH SINAR SDN. BHD. RESPONDENT

Rahmat Bulat Sdn. Bhd (RB), a housing developer signed a sale and purchase agreement (“the agreement”) with Rajesh Sinar Sdn. Bhd. (RS). In the agreement signed by both parties on 31 March 2010, RS agreed to sell and RB agreed to purchase 1,140.40 acres of land in Mukim Melaka Tengah in the state of Melaka for a price of RM3,000,000.00. After payment of the deposit (10%) and three 3 instalments amounting to RM300,000.00 towards the purchase price, in a few months time RB informed RS that they had failed to obtain a loan to pay the balance of the purchase price from any financial institution. RB also argued that they had been lawfully discharged from further performance of the agreement. RS insisted on receiving the full balance of the purchase price.

RB then commenced proceedings in the High Court for a declaration that the contract had been frustrated and consequently RB was discharged from its obligation to perform the contract. RB also sought refund of all monies paid under the contract. RS filed a counter-claim and sought for an order of specific performance of the contract, compensation or damages in addition to the order of specific performance or alternatively, damages for breach of the contract in lieu of specific performance. The learned judge dismissed RB's claims with costs. The learned judge, however, did not make an order for specific performance but in lieu, he awarded RS damages under cl 10.1 of the agreement. which read as follows:

10.1Default By The Purchaser

In the event of any breach by the purchaser of any of the provisions of this agreement the vendor shall (subject to and after the expiry of a notice in writing to the purchaser requiring the purchaser to remedy such breach(es) within thirty (30) days from the date thereof provided always that such notice is only necessary if the breach(es) does/do not involve the payment of the second instalment or the third instalment) be entitled to forfeit the first instalment and the sum equivalent to eleven per centum (11%) per annum on the third instalment or portion thereof remaining unpaid/outstanding calculated from the due date until the date of such forfeiture by way of agreed liquidated damages and the vendor's solicitors shall refund to the purchaser all other monies paid by the purchaser towards the purchase of the land (free of interest) in exchange for the titles whereupon this agreement shall terminate and cease to be of any further effect but without prejudice

to any right which either party may be entitled to against the other party in respect of any antecedent breach of this agreement.

The Learned Judge ordered the forfeiture of the deposit and a further sum of equivalent to 11%pa on the third instalment. RB challenged the trial judge's decision on the issues of frustration of the contract, the issue of RS's claims in the pleadings and the agreed liquidated damages under clause 10.1 of the agreement,

RB appealed on the grounds that:

i. the failure to obtain a loan to pay the balance of the purchase price due to the liquidity problem and Bank Negara ruling on lending to the broad property Sector was a supervening event beyond the control of the appellant.

ii. the liquidated damages awarded under cl 10.1 of the agreement is extravagant, exorbitant and unconscionable.

Moot Problem Final Round (Bahasa Melayu)

DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN, MALAYSIA

DI PUTRAJAYA

(DALAM BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN)

NO. MOOT 2012

ANTARA

RAHMAT BULAT SDN BHD PERAYU

DAN

RAJESH SINAR SDN BHD RESPONDEN

Rahmat Bulat Sdn. Bhd (RB), pemaju perumahan telah memeterai perjanjian jual beli ("Perjanjian tersebut") dengan Rajesh Sinar Sdn. Bhd. (RS). Di dalam Perjanjian tersebut yang ditandatangani oleh kedua-dua pihak pada 31 Mac 2010, RS bersetuju untuk menjual dan RB bersetuju untuk membeli 1,140.40 ekar tanah di Mukim Melaka Tengah di negeri Melaka dengan harga RM3,000,000.00. Selepas pembayaran deposit (10%) dan tiga (3) kali ansuran berjumlah RM300,000.00 daripada harga belian, dalam beberapa bulan kemudiannya RB memaklumkan kepada RS bahawa mereka telah gagal untuk mendapatkan pinjaman untuk membayar baki harga belian dari mana-mana institusi kewangan. RB juga menegaskan bahawa mereka telah dilepaskan daripada meneruskan perjanjian tersebut secara sah. RS berkeras untuk mendapatkan baki penuh harga belian tersebut.

RB kemudiannya memulakan prosiding di Mahkamah Tinggi untuk suatu perisytiharan bahawa kontrak tersebut telah terganggu (frustrasi) dan oleh sebab itu RB telah terlepas daripada kewajipan untuk melaksanakan kontrak tersebut. RB juga meminta bayaran balik kesemua wang yang dibayar di bawah kontrak tersebut. RS memfailkan tuntutan balas dan memohon untuk mendapatkan suatu perintah pelaksanaan spesifik kontrak, pampasan atau ganti rugi sebagai tambahan kepada perintah pelaksanaan spesifik atau secara alternatif, ganti rugi kerana pelanggaran kontrak dalam gantian pelaksanaan spesifik. Hakim yang bijaksana menolak tuntutan RB dengan kos. Hakim yang bijaksana, bagaimanapun, tidak memberi perintah pelaksanaan spesifik tetapi sebagai ganti, beliau mengawardkan pampasan/ gantirugi kepada RS di bawah klausa 10.1 perjanjian tersebut seperti berikut:

10.1 Kegagalan di Pihak Pembeli

Sekiranya mana-mana pelanggaran oleh pembeli apa-apa peruntukan perjanjian ini penjual hendaklah (tertakluk kepada dan selepas tamat notis secara bertulis kepada pembeli yang memerlukan pembeli untuk membetulkan pelanggaran itu dalam tempoh tiga puluh (30) hari dari tarikh daripadanya dengan syarat bahawa notis sedemikian hanya perlu jika pelanggaran tidak melibatkan pembayaran ansuran kedua atau ansuran ketiga) berhak untuk membatalkan ansuran pertama dan jumlah yang bersamaan kepada sebelas peratus (11%) setahun atas ansuran yang ketiga atau sebahagian daripadanya yang belum dibayar / terkumpul dikira dari tarikh tamat kerana sehingga tarikh yang pelucuthakan itu dengan bayaran pampasan/gantirugi yang dipersetujui dan peguamcara penjual hendaklah

memulangkan kepada pembeli semua wang lain yang dibayar oleh pembeli terhadap pembelian tanah (tanpa faedah) dalam pertukaran hakmilik di mana perjanjian ini adalah tamat dan terhenti daripada apa-apa kesan lagi tetapi tanpa prejudis terhadap hak yang boleh didapati oleh mana-mana pihak terhadap pihak lain berkenaan dengan apa-apa yg melanggar perjanjian ini.

Hakim yang bijaksana memerintahkan pelucuthakan deposit dan jumlah bersamaan dengan 11% setahun ke atas ansuran ketiga. RB merayu terhadap keputusan hakim perbicaraan mengenai isu-isu frustrasi kontrak, isu tuntutan RS dalam pliding dan persetujuan ganti rugi di bawah klausa 10.1 fasal perjanjian itu,

RB merayu atas alasan bahawa:

i. kegagalan untuk mendapatkan pinjaman untuk membayar baki harga belian kerana masalah kecairan dan peraturan Bank Negara ke atas pinjaman kepada sektor harta benda yang luas adalah supervening (gangguan) luar kawalan perayu.

ii. ganti rugi yang diawardkan di bawah klausa 10.1 perjanjian itu adalah melampaui batas, terlalu tinggi dan tidak berpatutan.

Official Timeline (Final) Law Moot Competition 2012/2013

Dear Participants,

Congratulations to all finalists and below are the timeline of  Final Law Moot Competition 2012/2013:

Official Timeline of Law Moot Competition 2012/2013 (Final Round)

7th December 2012 Submission of Problem Clarification

10th December 2012 Release of Problem Clarification

2nd January 2013 Submission & Exchange of Memorials

12th January 2013 Finals of Law Moot Competition

Please take note that each team is required to submit 7 copies of their memorials to the Organizing Committee.

Regards,
Organizing Committee of Law Moot Competition 2012/2013

Preliminaries Finalist 2012/2013

Dear All, below are the shortlisted team for the Final Round of Law Moot Competition 2012/2013. The Organizing Committee would like to extend our greatest gratitude in congratulating all participants for their astounding performances during the Preliminary Rounds for Law Moot Competition 2012/2013. 

MMU LAW MOOT COMPETITION 2012/2013

OFFICIAL RESULTS

(TOP 5)

ENGLISH SESSION

APPELLANT

1.    TEAM 13 : NG YIH MIIN & MICHAEL TIE SIAW KAI

2.    TEAM 40 : MAYNA RAMESH PATEL & PUSHOTAMAN PUVANENDRAN

3.    TEAM 53 : HUSSEIN BIN AKHTAR & LEE JEE YUN

4.    TEAM 33 : AINUL AZZEATI BT. AHMAD & SHARIFAH FATIMAH YASMIN

5.    TEAM 7 : ARINA ONG XIN YI & WONG SHI YEW

RESPONDENT

1.    TEAM 17 : JEFFERY MOK & JACE CHONG

2.    TEAM 1 : NAN MUHAMMAD RIDHWAN B. ROSNAN & NUR DIYANA BT. ABDUL RAHIM

3.    TEAM 4 : PAVITHRA A/P VIJAYA KUMAR & RISHI KAUR A/P RAMINDERJEET SINGH

4.    TEAM 29 : MUHAMMAD ASYRAF BIN ZULKIPLI & ISWELJET SINGH DHILLON

5.    TEAM 63 : MOHAMMED MIRAN BIN MOHD. SALIP & AHMAD AKMAL BIN MOHD. MOHTAR

BM SESSION

PERAYU

1.    TEAM 18 : MELVIN TAY YEE SHIAN & GABRIEL KOO KION KEONG

2.    TEAM 36 : ONG YEE WEN & REBECCA LIM EN TZI

3.    TEAM 67 : LIM YI CHONG & ONG TA KHING

4.    TEAM 46 : SANGARAN A/L RAWISANDIRAN & BOOVENSWARAN MUNUSAMY

5.    TEAM 24 : NORHIDAYAH NADILA MAULAD DAUD & SHEIKH ZULHELMI

RESPONDEN

1.    TEAM 23 : CHAI YANG YU & OOI SHE YI

2.    TEAM 68 : AZHANNI BINTI CHE’MOIN & KELVIN NG CHANG HONG

3.    TEAM 28 : WINNIE HO SOOK FUN & CHEAH SUIT YEE

4.    TEAM 35 : AHMAD MUZHAFFAR BIN RAZAK & BENEDICT YEO WEI HUP

5.    TEAM 27 : WAN MUHD ARIFF AMEER & SITI SUHAILA JASMI

Congratulations to Team 13, 17, 18 and 23 for making into the final rounds of Multimedia University Law Moot Competition 2012/2013.

Regards,

Organizing Committee of Law Moot Competition 2012/2013

Exchange of Bundles

Dear Moot Participants,

Please be reminded that this Friday will be the exchanging of bundles. The details of exchanging of bundles will be as follows:

Date: 9th of November 2012
Time: 9a.m.-5p.m.
Venue: MPBR00016 (Where the statutes are distributed)

Thank you.

Regards,
Organizing Committee of Law Moot Competition 2012/2013

Submission of Memorial

Dear Mooters,

Your utmost attention is hereby requested on the following:

1. Problem clarification should be attached with the moot question in the memorial. Place it after the moot question. It supplements the original moot problem. Kindly be reminded that all teams must include both English and Bahasa Malaysia problem clarifications in their memorials. Teams mooting in English may rely on Bahasa Malaysia problem clarifications and vice versa.

2. Each team is required to submit four (4) bundles of memorial. Please tie up the memorials together and hand in to the organizing committee accordance to details as follow:

Date: 7th November 2012 (WEDNESDAY)

Venue: MPBR 0016 (room where the statute books were distributed)

Time: 9.00a.m. – 5.00p.m.

Prior to the submission of memorials, please contact:

Lisa: 0193719302 or Ida: 0193762035

*Please take note that the organizing committee will not provide any memorials, all participants are required to bring along their respective memorials during the competition.

*Please take note that only one day will be allocated for the submission of memorials. Failure to comply with the requirements will be subjected to serious disciplinary action.

*Late submission of memorials would not be entertained, and the team shall be responsible for their own actions.

3. Please take note that there are clarifications made to ‘Structure of Memorial’ - (no. 4) relating to Length of Argument. Each argument must not exceed eight (8) pages including both counsel’s and co-counsel’s argument. Participants may have more than one (1) argument.

Preliminary Rounds: 22nd - 24th November 2012

For any further inquiries, please do not hesitate to contact us or email us at our official mailing address mmulawmoot@yahoo.com.

Regards,

Organizing Committee of Law Moot Competition 2012/2013

Answers for Problem Clarification (BM)

Pasangan                                             Penjelasan  Masalah

Pasangan12                                         1. Apakah subjek yang terlibat dalam perjanjian jual beli tersebut?

-          Rujuk pada fakta kes

2. Adakah kedua belah pihak terikat dengan perjanjian yang ditanda tangani pada 31 Mac 2010?

- Ya

3. Pihak manakah yang telah melanggar perjanjian jual beli tersebut?

- Rujuk pada fakta kes

4. Apakah transaksi yang telah dibuat dalam jual beli antara perayu dan respondent?

- Rujuk pada fakta kes ( soalan kurang jelas)

5. Pelanggaran kontrak oleh sebelah pihak, adakah mereka subjek kepada klausa 10.1 perjanjian tersebut?

-rujuk pada fakta kes

6. Apakah yang di maksudkan oleh klausa 10.1 perjanjian tersebut.

- ‘mooters’ perlu memahaminya sendiri

7. Atas alasan apakah RB yakin bahawa mereka terlepas dari meneruskan perjanjian secara sah setelah gagal membuat pembayaran?

- rujuk pada fakta kes

8. Adakah RS telah memberikan notis 30 hari kepada RB seperti yang ditetapkan sebelum mengaplikasikan klausa 10.1?

- andaian oleh ‘mooters’

Pasangan18                                         1. Adakah Responden memberikan notis sepanjang 30 hari kepada perayu untuk membetulkan pelanggarannya? 

                                                           

- andaian oleh ‘mooters’

2. A) Adakah jumlah wang deposit sama dengan jumlah bayaran ansuran pertama?

- tidak sama

B) kalau tidak, Apakah perbezaan antara jumlah deposit dengan jumlah bayaran ansuran pertama? 

- Deposit 10% dan jumlah ansuran RM83,500 (andaian ‘mooters)

3.  Sejak bilakah Masalah kecairan mula berlaku? 

- andaian oleh ‘mooters’

4.  Sejak bilakah peraturan Bank Negara dikuatkuasakan? 

- andaian oleh ‘mooters’

Pasangan 23                                        1. Adakah RB dalam keadaan yang waras dan kompeten, apabila RB menandatangani perjanjian itu dengan RS?

                                                            -tidak relevan

2. Adakah RB telah meneliti, memastikan dan memahami tentang syarat-syarat perjanjian dengan RS ini apabila memeterai perjanjian jual beli ini? 

-tidak relevan

3. Apakah penaakulan yang diberikan oleh hakim yang bijaksana apabila hakim yang bijaksana memberikan penghakiman untuk membayar pampasan/ganti rugi dan menafikan tuntutan RS tentang pelaksanan specifik?    

-- andaian oleh ‘mooters’

4. Adakah perjanjian yang ditandatangani antara RB dan RS pernah mengatakan bahawa RB akan membeli tanah tersebut dengan mendapat pinjaman wang daripada bank? - andaian oleh ‘mooters’

5. Adakah RS menegaskan tuntutan pelaksanaan spesifik pada setiap masa dalam rayuan ini?

-siapa yang merayu

6. Apakah butir-butiran dalam garispanduan Bank Negara berhubung dengan pinjaman kepada sektor hartanah?

-andaian oleh ‘mooters’

Pasangan 24                                        1. Jumlah ansuran yang dibayar oleh pihak Rahmat Bulat sdn bhd , adakah didalam jumlah RM 83,500 atau pun RM 83.5 juta ?

-          Tidak relevan

Pasangan 28                                        1. Ke atas apakah sebab Bank Negara menolakkan pemimjaman kepada Rahmat Bulat Sdn Bhd?

                                                            -andaian oleh’ mooters’

2. Apakah kecairan yang dibuat oleh Bank Negara ke atas pemimjaman tersebut? 

-andaian oleh ‘mooters’

3. Adakah kontrak (Klausa 10.1) yang dibuat oleh kedua-dua pihak atas nasihat penasihat undang-undang?

-tidak relevan

Pasangan35                                         1. Adakah RS telah memberi notis pemberitahuan selama 30 hari kepada RB?

                                                            -andaian oleh ‘mooters’

2. Berapa lamakah RB memiliki hak tanah (Title) setelah memberitahu RS bahawa mereka telah gagal untuk mendapatkan pinjaman dan melunaskan hutang pembelian tanah tersebut?

-tidak relevan

3. Adakah kegagalan pemilikhakan tanah oleh RB (setelah gagal melunaskan hutang) dipulang semula kepada RS (Title)?

-tidak relevan

4. Mengikut klausa 10.1 perjanjian kontrak antara RB dan RS. RB membawa kes di atas hujahan frustrasi kontrak, isu-isu pliding oleh RS dan juga damage kecairan di bawah klausa 10.1. Apakah tuntutan  (isu-isu pliding) yang dibuat oleh RS? 

-andaian oleh ‘mooters’

5. Apakah yang dimaksudkan dengan keputusan Hakim di dalam mahkamah tinggi untuk tidak mengawardkan  pelucuthakan ansuran pertama di dalam klausa 10.1? (Hanya pelucuthakan deposit sahaja yang diberikan oleh Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi dan juga jumlah 11% setahun ke atas ansuran ketiga) 

- penghakiman merujuk kepada klausa 10.1 dan perenggan 4

6. Adakah tuntutan Pelaksanaan Spesifikasi Kontrak dan juga Frustrasi Kontrak oleh RS yang ditolak , dilakukan oleh Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi di atas budi bicara mahkamah? (Kegagalan pelaksanaan spesfikasi kontrak) dan hanya mengawardkan damage berdasarkan kepada deposit dan ansuran pertama dan ketiga. 

-rujuk fakta kes

7. Siapakah bank (mana-mana insititusi kewangan) yang dimaksudkan oleh RB untuk mendapatkan Pinjaman?

-tidak relevan

8. Di dalam klausa 10.1, Notis 30 hari oleh RS hanya perlu diberikan apabila kegagalan RB untuk melunaskan hutang tidak melibatkan ansuran kedua dan ketiga, Adakah ianya juga termasuk ansuran keempat yang gagal dilunaskan oleh RB (penyebab kepada permulaan prosiding di Mahkamah Tinggi)?

-tidak relevan

9. Adakah kegagalan melunaskan hutang (ansuran keempat oleh RB) menimbulkan isu penipuan (fraudulent) terhadap RS?

-tidak relevan

Pasangan51                                         1. Apakah tarikh pelucuthakan yang ditetapkan?

                                                            -tidak relevan

2. Adakah tarikh siap ditetapkan dalam perjanjian jual beli tersebut?

-tidak relevan

3. Adakah Bank Negara yang mengalami masalah kecairan ataupun RB Sdn. Bhd.?

-tidak relevan

4. Adakah RS membayar wang deposit (10%) dan wang ansuran berjumlah RM83,500 menggunakan wang sendiri atau wang daripada Bank Negara atau mana-mana institusi kewangan?

-tidak relevan

5. Adakah RB memenuhi syarat-syarat dan/atau peraturan-peraturan yang ditetapkan oleh Bank Negara semasa memohon pinjaman?

-tidak

6. Adakah pihak penjual (RS) telah menghantar notis kepada pihak pembeli (RB) dalam  tempoh 3o hari sepertimana yang ditetapkan di bawah klausa 10.1 perjanjian jual beli?

-andaian oleh ‘mooters’

7. Adakah dalam kontrak antara pihak penjual dan pembeli terdapat satu klausa yang menyatakan bahawa perjanjian tersebut adalah dibatalkan sekiranya pihak pembeli gagal mendapatkan pinnjaman daripada Bank Negara?

                                                            -andaian oleh ‘mooters’

Pasukan 44                                          1. Adakah sumber-sumber yang tidak berkaitan dengan undang-undang seperti artikel surat khabar dan sebagainya dibenarkan untuk diguna dalam hujahan?

                                                           -tidak dibenarkan

2. Adakah terdapat provisi dalam kontrak bahawa jikalau pinjaman tidak dapat didapati, apakah akan berlaku kepada parti-parti kontrak?

-andaian oleh’mooters’

Pasangan26                             1) Apa yang dimaksudkan dalam klausa 10.1      "jumlah yang bersamaan dengan kepada 11% setahun atas ansuran ketiga" ? 11% daripada jumlah mana? jumlah harga tanah tersebut atau jumlah ansuran yang dibayar?

-          Rujuk pada fakta kes

2) mengikut fakta dalam Klausa 10.1 hanya sebut mengenai ansuran pertama dan ansuran ketiga, bagaimana dengan ansuran kedua? adakah ia tidak perlu diambil kira?

-rujuk pada fakta kes

Answers for Problem Clarification (ENG)

Team Number                                     Problem Clarifications

Team 3                                                1. The value of the land during Rajesh Sinar Sdn. Bhd. (RS)’s failure to pay the balance of the purchase price.

                                                            -Mooters should calculate by themselves

2. The respective amount of first installment and third instalment.

-Total of three instalments is RM83,500- so mooters may assume the amount of the 1st and 3rd instalments

3. In line 8 of the second paragraph, it was stated that the learned judge awarded RS damages under cl 10.1 of the agreement, namely, the forfeiture of the first instalment, and 11% p.a. of the third instalment or portion remaining unpaid calculated from the due date until the date of such forfeiture by way of agreed liquidated damages. However, the next paragraph (paragraph 4) stated that the learned judged ordered for the forfeiture of the deposit and a sum amounting to 11% p.a. on the third instalment. As I understand it, the forfeiture of the first instalment is different from the forfeiture of the deposit. Line 8 of the second paragraph said that the learned judge gave effect to the damages stated under cl 10.1 of the agreement but at paragraph 4, his Lordship gave a different order. Please do clarify if it is meant to be an additional order/award and if not, whether the forfeiture of the first instalment was allowed by his Lordship or not.

-Forfeiture of the 1st instalment is different from the forfeiture of the deposit

-The order / decision made by the Judge is as per clause 10.1 and paragraph 4

4. The second ground of appeal stated that the words “liquidated damages awarded under cl 10.1”. I would like to clarify whether the liquidated damages as stated refer to the forfeiture of the first instalment, 11% p.a. of the third instalment and the portion remaining unpaid. As I know, liquidated damages refer to damages that are pre-determined and usually refer to the deposit paid by buyer. So I need a clarification as to whether the liquidated damages as stated refer solely to the damages stated under 10.1 of the agreement (which does not include deposit) or whether the liquidated damages also cover the forfeiture of the deposit as ordered by the learned judge in paragraph 4 (assuming that there is no mistake in such order). 

-The liquidated damages as stated refer solely to clause 10.1 of the agreement as per the 2nd ground of Appeal

5. Line 7 of the third paragraph. The words “portion thereof” refer to the third instalment only or both the third and the first instalments? Do the words “by way of agreed liquidated damages” refer to both the forfeiture of the first instalment, and the 11% p.a. of the third instalment/portion remaining unpaid?

-The ‘word portion thereof’- refer to both the instalment

-The word’ by way of agreed liquidated damages’ refer to both 1st instalment and the 11% of the 3rd instalment/ portion remaining unpaid

Team 5                                                1. May I know what is the due date as mentioned in clause 10.1 of the agreement in line 8 which states that ‘…remaining unpaid/outstanding calculated from the due date until the date of such forfeiture by way of agreed liquidated damages …’ ?

                                                            -assumption to be made by mooters

Team 7                                                1. Is there any special condition that Rahmah Bulat Sdn. Bhd. (RB) has to comply when seeking financial facility from the bank?

-          Is not mentioned in the facts- to make assumption

Team 8                                                1. Did RS send notice in writing to RB? (this fact is essential for the argument of RS’ compliance to the clause 10.1)

-          Assumption to be made by mooters

2. How long was the land title in RB’s possession after  they informed RS that they had failed to obtain the loan to pay the balance of the purchase price? 

- Irrelevant

3. According to the moot question, RB challenged the trial judge's decision on the issues of the frustration of the contract, the issues of the RS's claim in the pleading, and the agreed liquidated damages under the clause 10.1. What is ‘RS's claim in the pleading’ about?

-assumption to be made by mooters

4. It was written that the learned judge ordered forfeiture of deposit in the 4th paragraph (after the clause). Please clarify whether the order is inclusive of first instalment.

-Please refer to the judgment made by the Judge as per clause 10.1 and paragraph 4

Team 10                                              1. What is broad property? –to do research

2. What is liquidation problem? –the question is not clear

Team 22                                              1. When is the date of the transaction?

                                                            - There is breach of contract so no transaction took place

2. When is the due date for the full payment?

-assumption to be made by mooters

3. Is there any full written agreement of the transaction?

- written contract- yes

Team37                                               1. I would like to know are non legal sources allowed to be used as a source in mooting, like articles of newspaper, thesis and so on?

-          Not allowed

Team 60                                              1. We would like to identify whether Rajesh Sinar (the appellant) gave Rahmat Bulat (the respondent) any notice requiring the later to remedy the breaches he made toward RS? (as the facts are silent on this matter) If yes, has the notice expired?

                                                            -who is appellant and who is the respondent?

-assumption to be made by mooters

2. According to clause 10.1 of the contract, it states that a notice is only necessary if the breach does not involve the payment of the second instalment or the third instalment. Since the facts have stated that RB has paid for the three instalments, does it mean that RS needs not give a notice to RB and RS can forfeit the first instalment and the sum equivalent to eleven per annum on the third instalment…… as agreed by the parties?

-assumption to be made by mooters

3. We would like to know the interpretation of ‘portion thereof remaining unpaid/outstanding calculated from the due date until the date of such forfeiture by way of agreed liquidated damages’ as stated in Clause 10.1 of the contract.

-The ‘word portion thereof’- refer to both the instalment

Does the ‘remaining unpaid portion’ refer to the remaining amount in which the purchaser fails to remedy the vendor? In other words, does the ‘remaining unpaid portion’ refer to the remaining amount of the first instalment and 11% of the third instalment, in which the purchaser fails to pay, calculating from the due date of the notice?

-The word’ by way of agreed liquidated damages’ refer to both 1st instalment and the 11% of the 3rd instalment/ portion remaining unpaid

4. If the facts state that RS needs not serve a notice to RB as the breach does not involve the payment of second and third instalment, then how does the vendor forfeit the remaining unpaid portion as there is no notice, there will not be a due date of the notice until the date of such forfeiture?

-Irrelevant

5. The monies in which the vendor’s solicitors shall refund to the purchaser refer to what monies? The deposit, the second instalment and the remaining amount of the third instalment after paying 11% pa of it to the vendor as a remedy?

-assumption to be made by mooters based on the question

-the 2nd question -not clear