At the Court of appeal, the main issue is the respondents' action is out of time...
Fantastic news! We've Found the answer you've been seeking!
Question:
Transcribed Image Text:
At the Court of appeal, the main issue is the respondents' action is "out of time" limit. How does the Court differentiate the time limitation for filing for a guarantee and indemnity? Case Study Banking Securities (Guarantee and Indemnity) Sia Siew Hong & Ors v Lim Gim Chian & Anor [1996] 3 CLJ 26, Court of Appeal Facts: The appellants were the shareholders and directors of Siah Teong Loo & Sons Sdn Bhd (STLS S/B). The respondents were third party chargors of a piece of land charged to Interfinance Bhd which granted a loan to STLS S/B. The appellants executed a document described as "guarantee" to secure the due performance by them of the terms of the loan agreement which they had with Interfinance Bhd. STLS S/B defaulted in repayment of the loan sometime in September 1985. However, STLS S/B had made some payments in May 1992. Interfinance Bhd obtained an for sale of the charged land and the respondents' land was sold by public auction in 9 August 1993. In July 1994, Interfinance Bhd demanded the outstanding debt of RM616,754.57 from the respondents. In March 1994, the respondents sued the appellants based on the "guarantee". The appellants alleged that the claim was filed out of time, being more than six years from the breach of contracts and therefore attempted to raise a triable issue. On the hearing of the application for summary judgement, the learned Judicial Commissioner found that STLS S/B had breached the terms of the loan agreement in May 1992 and therefore, the respondents' claim was not filed out of time. There was therefore no triable issue and summary judgement was entered against the appellants. The appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal. The main issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the respondents' action had been commenced within the period of limitation. The main question was when time begun to run. If the document was a guarantee, then time began to run from the date of the breach of the contract (September 1985); but if the document was an indemnity, then time begun to run only from the date on which that loss was suffered, that is, at the sale by auction (9 August 1993). Held, dismissing the appeal, inter alia: (1) in the construction of contracts, the Court is not bound by the labels that the parties choose to affix onto the particular document. The duty of the Court is to construe the document as a whole and to determine from its language and any other admissible evidence its true nature and purport. In the present case the document executed by the appellants, when properly construed, appears to come within the definition contained in section 77 of the Contracts Act 1950. In the circumstances, the said document must be construed to be an indemnity rather than a guarantee. (2) Since the promise made by the appellants to the respondents was to indemnify the latter against the loss of the charged property, time begun to run only from the date that loss was suffered; that is, at the sale of the land by auction on 9 August 1993. As the writ was filed within six years from that date, the respondents' action was not barred by limitation. At the Court of appeal, the main issue is the respondents' action is "out of time" limit. How does the Court differentiate the time limitation for filing for a guarantee and indemnity? Case Study Banking Securities (Guarantee and Indemnity) Sia Siew Hong & Ors v Lim Gim Chian & Anor [1996] 3 CLJ 26, Court of Appeal Facts: The appellants were the shareholders and directors of Siah Teong Loo & Sons Sdn Bhd (STLS S/B). The respondents were third party chargors of a piece of land charged to Interfinance Bhd which granted a loan to STLS S/B. The appellants executed a document described as "guarantee" to secure the due performance by them of the terms of the loan agreement which they had with Interfinance Bhd. STLS S/B defaulted in repayment of the loan sometime in September 1985. However, STLS S/B had made some payments in May 1992. Interfinance Bhd obtained an for sale of the charged land and the respondents' land was sold by public auction in 9 August 1993. In July 1994, Interfinance Bhd demanded the outstanding debt of RM616,754.57 from the respondents. In March 1994, the respondents sued the appellants based on the "guarantee". The appellants alleged that the claim was filed out of time, being more than six years from the breach of contracts and therefore attempted to raise a triable issue. On the hearing of the application for summary judgement, the learned Judicial Commissioner found that STLS S/B had breached the terms of the loan agreement in May 1992 and therefore, the respondents' claim was not filed out of time. There was therefore no triable issue and summary judgement was entered against the appellants. The appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal. The main issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the respondents' action had been commenced within the period of limitation. The main question was when time begun to run. If the document was a guarantee, then time began to run from the date of the breach of the contract (September 1985); but if the document was an indemnity, then time begun to run only from the date on which that loss was suffered, that is, at the sale by auction (9 August 1993). Held, dismissing the appeal, inter alia: (1) in the construction of contracts, the Court is not bound by the labels that the parties choose to affix onto the particular document. The duty of the Court is to construe the document as a whole and to determine from its language and any other admissible evidence its true nature and purport. In the present case the document executed by the appellants, when properly construed, appears to come within the definition contained in section 77 of the Contracts Act 1950. In the circumstances, the said document must be construed to be an indemnity rather than a guarantee. (2) Since the promise made by the appellants to the respondents was to indemnify the latter against the loss of the charged property, time begun to run only from the date that loss was suffered; that is, at the sale of the land by auction on 9 August 1993. As the writ was filed within six years from that date, the respondents' action was not barred by limitation.
Expert Answer:
Answer rating: 100% (QA)
The Court of Appeal has ruled that the limitation period for filing an action for a guar... View the full answer
Related Book For
Smith and Roberson Business Law
ISBN: 978-0538473637
15th Edition
Authors: Richard A. Mann, Barry S. Roberts
Posted Date:
Students also viewed these accounting questions
-
Managing Scope Changes Case Study Scope changes on a project can occur regardless of how well the project is planned or executed. Scope changes can be the result of something that was omitted during...
-
The Crazy Eddie fraud may appear smaller and gentler than the massive billion-dollar frauds exposed in recent times, such as Bernie Madoffs Ponzi scheme, frauds in the subprime mortgage market, the...
-
Planning is one of the most important management functions in any business. A front office managers first step in planning should involve determine the departments goals. Planning also includes...
-
Segment (Division) Evaluation In this assignment you will analyze the performance of PepsiCo's divisions. SFAS 131 requires publicly traded companies to disclose division information in the notes to...
-
Fortune, Inc., is preparing its master budget for the first quarter. The company sells a single product at a price of $ 25 per unit. Sales (in units) are forecasted at 45,000 for January, 55,000 for...
-
In the experiment of Figure 13.7, what would be the predicted amounts of amino acids incorporated into polypeptides if the RNA was a random polymer containing 50% C and 50% G?
-
Where to find the law applicable to litigation matters
-
A 2000-liter water tank can withstand pressures up to 20.0bar absolute before rupturing. At a particular time the tank contains 165.0 kg of liquid water, the fill and exit valves are closed, and the...
-
a)Discuss the relevance and framework of credit quality analysis for a target company. (3marks)
-
(a) A loop of wire in the shape of a rectangle of width w and length L and a long, straight wire carrying a current I lie on a tabletop as shown in Figure P31.9. (a) Determine the magnetic flux...
-
1) Describe the importance of sales mix analysis. 2) Describe the importance of volume variance analysis. 3) Describe the importance of activity bases in managerial accounting. 4) Compare absorption...
-
Why does the percentage gain in earnings observed when a worker gets one more year of schooling measure the marginal rate of return to education?
-
What do liabilities and equity have in common? What is the key difference between them?
-
If the very same asset is depreciated by firm A in four years and by firm B in five years, either firm A or B are not following accounting best practices. Do you agree? Why, or why not?
-
Derive the stopping rule for investments in education.
-
Some people claim that by increasing depreciation, firms may save corporate taxes. Do you agree? Why, or why not?
-
How could Congress do that to us? You may recall that tax deductions are only deductible by the legislative grace of Congress. After this lesson, you might have realized that Congress was pretty...
-
Respond to the ethical judgments required based on the following scenarios. Scenario 1. Assume you have collected a sample using MUS and that you have evaluated that sample to calculate a total...
-
This is a stocklist case arising under 220(b) of our [Delaware] General Corporation Law. The issue is whether a shareholder states a proper purpose for inspection under our statute in seeking to...
-
Assume that Dinah draws a check on Oxford Bank, payable to the order of Pam; that Pam indorses it to Amy; that Amy deposits it to her account in Houston Bank; that Houston Bank presents it to Oxford...
-
Civil Code 1719, subdivision (a) provides in part that any person who draws a check that is dishonored due to insufficient funds shall be liable to the payee for the amount owing upon the check and...
-
The major reason that the difference and ratio estimation methods would be expected to produce audit efficiency compared to mean estimation is that the a. Number of members of the populations of...
-
Probability proportional to size sampling (PPS) is normally used when it is thought that the population contains a a. Few understatements. b. Large number of understatements. c. Few overstatements....
-
Vale has decided to use PPS sampling in the audit of a client's accounts receivable balances. Vale plans to use the following PPS sampling table: What sample size should Vale use? a. 120 b. 108 c. 60...
Study smarter with the SolutionInn App