1.
Parts of Memorial
1.1 The Memorial must
contain the following parts, and only the following parts:
1.
Cover Page;
2.
Competition Problem;
1.1.3 Counsel Argument;
1.1.4 Co-Counsel
Argument;
1.1.5 List of
Authorities;
1.1.6 Bundle of
Authorities;
2.
The Memorial must be paginated, starting from
the Competition Problem to the last page of the Bundle of Authorities.
3.
The Applicant/Appellant’s Memorial must be bound
in red, whereas the Respondent’s Memorial must be bound in blue.
4.
Names of counsels may not appear on or within
the Memorial. Signature pages are prohibited as well.
5.
The Memorial must be in accordance with the
format hereinafter shown.
2. Cover Page
1.
Each Memorial must bear on its cover only the
following:
1.
the name of the court;
2.
the moot number (pairing number) and year of the
Competition;
3.
the name and description of the parties to the
action;
4.
the title of the document (i.e.
Applicant/Appellant’s Memorial or Respondent’s Memorial)
3. Competition Problem
3.1 Competition
Problem means the official competition question for the Preliminary Rounds and
the Advanced Round as supplemented or corrected by any official Problem
Clarifications or corrections.
4. Argument
1.
It is important that counsel must prepare and
submit their Argument after stating the ground of appeal.
2.
Each Argument must contain:
1.
The Law;
2.
Application of the Law;
3.
Conclusion;
3.
Arguments must be elaborated in order to help
the judges to understand it further.
4.2 Each Argument must not exceed eight (8)
pages (12 point font, Times New Roman) in length.
5. List
of Authorities
5.1 A “List of Authorities” must be
included in each Memorial.
5.2 The “List of Authorities” must list
all authorities cited in each Argument.
6. Bundle of Authorities
6.1 Bundle
of Authorities must contain copies of authorities cited in each Argument.
6.2 Documents obtained from online sources must be
reduced to hardcopy, as much as possible in PDF format.
FORMAT 1 - COVER PAGE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT MALACCA
MOOT NO. OF 2012
BETWEEN
RAHMAT BULAT SDN. BHD. ….APPELLANT
AND
RAJESH SINAR SDN BHD ...RESPONDENTS
(IN THE SESSIONS COURT AT MALACCA
IN THE STATE OF MALACCA, MALAYSIA
MOOT NO: OF 2012
BETWEEN
RAHMAT BULAT SDN. BHD. …PLAINTIFFS
AND
RAJESH SINAR SDN BHD …DEFENDANT)
APPLICANT’S MEMORIAL
FORMAT 2 – COMPETITION PROBLEM
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT MALACCA
MOOT NO. OF 2012
BETWEEN
RAHMAT BULAT SDN. BHD. ….APPELLANT
AND
RAJESH SINAR SDN BHD ...RESPONDENTS
(IN THE SESSIONS COURT AT MALACCA
IN THE STATE OF MALACCA, MALAYSIA
MOOT NO: OF 2012
BETWEEN
RAHMAT BULAT SDN BHD …PLAINTIFFS
AND
RAJESH SINAR SDN BHD …DEFENDANT)
COMPETITION PROBLEM
IN THE SESSIONS COURT
AT MALACCA
IN THE STATE OF
MALACCA
BETWEEN
RAHMAT BULAT SDN
BHD........................................................PLAINTIFF
AND
RAJESH SINAR SDN BHD
……………………………….DEFENDANTS
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
1140.40 acres of land in Mukim Melaka Tengah in the state of Melaka for a price
of RM315,000.000. After payment of the deposit (10%) and three 3 instalments
amounting to RM83,500 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.
FORMAT 3 – ARGUMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT MALACCA
MOOT NO. OF 2012
BETWEEN
RAHMAT BULAT SDN BHD ...APPELLANT
AND
RAJESH SINAR SDN BHD ...RESPONDENTS
(IN THE SESSIONS COURT AT MALACCA
IN THE STATE OF MALACCA, MALAYSIA
MOOT NO: 1234 OF 2012
BETWEEN
RAHMAT BULAT SDN BHD …PLAINTIFFS
AND
RAJESH SINAR SDN BHD …DEFENDANT)
COUNSEL ARGUMENT
I.
GROUND
OF SUBMISSION
II.
SUBMISSIONS
Main Argument which consists of:
1. Law
2. Application
of Law
3. Conclusion
III.
CLOSING SUBMISSION
DATED THIS DAY
OF 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT MALACCA
MOOT NO. OF 2012
BETWEEN
RAHMAT BULAT SDN BHD ...APPELLANT
AND
RAJESH SINAR SDN BHD ...RESPONDENTS
(IN THE SESSIONS COURT AT MALACCA
IN THE STATE OF MALACCA, MALAYSIA
MOOT NO: 1234 OF 2012
BETWEEN
RAHMAT BULAT SDN BHD …PLAINTIFFS
AND
RAJESH SINAR SDN BHD …DEFENDANT)
CO-COUNSEL ARGUMENT
I. GROUND OF SUBMISSION
I.
SUBMISSIONS
Main Argument which consists of:
1. Law
2. Application
of Law
3. Conclusion
III. CLOSING
SUBMISSION
DATED THIS DAY
OF 2012
FORMAT 4 – LIST OF AUTHORITIES
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT MALACCA
MOOT NO. OF 2012
BETWEEN
RAHMAT BULAT SDN BHD ….APPELLANT
AND
RAJESH SINAR SDN BHD ...RESPONDENTS
(IN THE SESSIONS COURT AT MALACCA
IN THE STATE OF MALACCA, MALAYSIA
MOOT NO: OF 2012
BETWEEN
RAHMAT BULAT SDN BHD …PLAINTIFFS
AND
RAJESH SINAR SDN BHD …DEFENDANT)
APPLICANT’S LIST OF AUTHORITIES
1. Government of Malaysia v Loh Wai Kong
[1979] 2 MLJ 33 (sample only)
2. Article
11(4) Federal Constitution 1957 (sample only)
DATED THIS DAY
OF 2012
FORMAT 1 – MUKA DEPAN
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI MELAKA
MUT NO. TAHUN
2012
ANTARA
RAHMAT BULAT SDN BHD ….PLAINTIF-PLAINTIF
DAN
RAJESH SINAR SDN BHD ...RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN
(DALAM MAHKAMAH
SESYEN DI MELAKA
DALAM NEGERI MELAKA,
MALAYSIA
MUT NO: TAHUN 2012
ANTARA
RAHMAT BULAT SDN BHD …PLAINTIF-PLAINTIF
DAN
RAJESH SINARSDN BHD …DEFENDAN)
MEMORIAL PEMOHON
FORMAT 2 – SOALAN PERTANDINGAN
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI MELAKA
MUT NO. TAHUN
2012
ANTARA
RAHMAT BULAT SDN BHD
...PERAYU
DAN
RAJESH SINAR SDN BHD ...RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN
(DALAM MAHKAMAH
SESYEN DI MELAKA
DALAM NEGERI MELAKA,
MALAYSIA
MUT NO: TAHUN 2012
ANTARA
RAHMAT BULAT SDN BHD …PLAINTIF-PLAINTIF
DAN
RAJESH SINAR SDN BHD …DEFENDAN)
SOALAN PERTANDINGAN
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 1140,40 ekar tanah di
Mukim Melaka Tengah di negeri Melaka dengan harga RM315, 000,000. Selepas
pembayaran deposit (10%) dan tiga (3) kali ansuran berjumlah RM83,500 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.
FORMAT 3 –HUJAHAN PEGUAM
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI MELAKA
MUT NO. TAHUN
2012
ANTARA
RAHMAT BULAT SDN BHD
...PERAYU
DAN
RAJESH SINAR SDN BHD ...RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN
(DALAM MAHKAMAH
SESYEN DI MELAKA
DALAM NEGERI MELAKA,
MALAYSIA
MUT NO: TAHUN 2012
ANTARA
RAHMAT BULAT SDN BHD …PLAINTIF-PLAINTIF
DAN
RAJESH SINAR SDN
BHD …DEFENDAN)
HUJAHAN PEGUAM PERTAMA
I. ALASAN HUJAHAN
I.
HUJAHAN
Hujahan Utama seharusnya merangkumi:
1. Undang-undang
2. Aplikasi
undang-undang berkenaan
3. Kesimpulan
III. HUJAHAN PENUTUP
BERTARIKH 2012
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI MELAKA
MUT NO. TAHUN
2012
ANTARA
RAHMAT BULAT SDN. BHD. ...PERAYU
DAN
RAJESH SINAR SDN BHD ...RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN
(DALAM MAHKAMAH
SESYEN DI MELAKA
DALAM NEGERI MELAKA,
MALAYSIA
MUT NO: 1234 TAHUN 2012
ANTARA
RAHMAT BULAT SDN BHD …PLAINTIF-PLAINTIF
DAN
RAJESH SINAR SDN
BHD …DEFENDAN)
HUJAHAN PEGUAM KEDUA
I. ALASAN HUJAHAN
I.
HUJAHAN
Hujahan Utama seharusnya merangkumi:
1. Undang-undang
2. Aplikasi
undang-undang berkenaan
3. Kesimpulan
III. HUJAHAN PENUTUP
BERTARIKH 2012
FORMAT 4 – SENARAI AUTORITI
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI MELAKA
MUT NO. TAHUN
2012
ANTARA
RAHMAT BULAT SDN. BHD. ...PERAYU
DAN
RAJESH SINAR SDN BHD ...RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN
(DALAM MAHKAMAH
SESYEN DI MELAKA
DALAM NEGERI MELAKA,
MALAYSIA
MUT NO: 1234 TAHUN 2012
ANTARA
RAHMAT BULAT SDN BHD …PLAINTIF-PLAINTIF
DAN
RAJESH SINAR SDN BHD …DEFENDAN)
SENARAI AUTORITI PEMOHON
1. Government of Malaysia lwn Loh Wai Kong [1979] 2 MLJ 33 (Contoh)
2. Fasal
11(4) Perlembagaan Persekutuan 1957 (Contoh)
BERTARIKH 2012
