Kerpa Singh v Bariam Singh [1966] 1 MLJ 38
Bariam Singh owed RM8,869.94 to Kerpa Singh. A letter was written by Bariam Singh’s son to
Kerpa Singh, offering to pay a part payment of RM4,000 to KS in satisfaction of the full debt
owed by his father. Bariam Singh’s son endorsed a cheque and it was stated in the letter that if
KS refuse to accept that part payment, he has to return the cheque. This indicates that once Kerpa
Singh or any other authorized people on his behalf signed or accepted the cheque, the part
payment would have discharged the full debt. Kerpa Singh’s legal advisers accepted the cheque
and retained the money. However, Kerpa Singh intended to claim the remaining sum of the debt
by issuing a bankruptcy notice to BS. The Federal Court held that since the cheque was cashed
and the money was retained by Kerpa Singh, it indicates the acceptance of the cheque by Bariam
Singh’ son in full settlement of the debt owed by his father. Hence, Kerpa Singh lost the lawsuit
and failed to claim the remaining balance of the debt. By referring to this case, it is able to
determine that Angelina is not contracted to pay Laura RM 20 as Laura had accepted Angelina’s
offer of RM 80 voucher in settlement of the full debt.
Reference: https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/consideration-law/consideration-in-contract-
formation.php
https://www.academia.edu/34903963/KERPA_SINGH_v_BARIAM_SINGH_-_1966_1_MLJ
http://graguraman1.blogspot.com/2010/07/consideration.html
D&C builders v Rees
Mr. Rees had instructed the D&C builders to do some renovations and repairs at his shop and the
amount of pay for the building works is £746. Mr. Rees then paid £250 and received a discount
of £14 from D&C builders, leaving Mr. Rees with a remaining debt of £482. Mr. Rees did not
make the remaining payment for a period of time and therefore D&C builders urged the payment
by writing letters to Mr. Rees. However, all attempts were in vain. When D&C builders started to
have financial issue and were desperate for money, they request for the funds again by issuing a
second bill to Mr. Rees. Mrs. Rees, being aware of the crisis D&C buildings are facing, made
complaints and dissatisfactions about the building works and offered to pay a part payment of
£300 in satisfaction of the full debt owed by Mr. Rees. D&C buildings refuse to accept the offer
made by Mrs. Rees. D&C buildings stated that they would accept the £300 and the remaining
balance of the debt are given a year of time for her to pay off. However, Mrs. Rees remained
persistent and stated that only £300 would be paid by her to the D&C builders and requested
them to provide a receipt stating that the part payment were in satisfaction of the whole debt
owed by Mr. Rees. Otherwise, D&C builders would get nothing from her. Under such
circumstances, D&C builders have no choice but to reluctantly agreed to fulfill the request by
Mrs. Rees and accepted the money as they were on the verge of bankruptcy and were in the need
of money. D&C builders then brought an action against Mrs. Rees for the remaining sum of debt.
Mrs. Rees then filed a defense stating that the building works done by D&C builders at the shop
was defective and they had entered into a binding agreement. In the end, D&C builders
successfully claim the remaining balance and the appeal by Mrs. Rees was dismissed. The court
held that under The English common law, payment of a lesser sum in satisfaction of the whole
sum are not acceptable unless consideration is provided. Besides, the agreement between D&C
builders and Mrs. Rees was void and invalid because there was no consideration in the part of
Mrs. Rees. Moreover, D&C builders accepted the reduced payment under duress. They accepted
it due to their poor financial position which Mrs. Rees took advantage of. By viewing this case in
the perspective of general rule in English common law, it can be determined that Angelina is
contracted to pay Laura RM 20. This is because the general rule in English common law stated
that part payment of a debt in satisfaction of the full amount is not acceptable unless sufficient
consideration is provided.
Reference https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/d-c-builders-v-rees.php
https://casebrief.fandom.com/wiki/D._%26_C._Builders_Ltd._v_Rees
http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/D--and--C-Builders-v-Rees.php
