Chandran owns several shops in Kuala Lumpur running a retail textiles business. In January 2023, his business was in need of additional capital. His wife, Devi, owns a large house, which was left to her by her father. Devi had previously mentioned to him that she would like to do some sort of business. Recalling this conversation, Chandran persuaded Devi to use her house as security for a loan he is negotiating with his bank, in return for which he promised to give her a share in the profits of the business. They visited the bank together and the bank manager, Alan, who, when informed of Chandran's planned to share his profits with Devi, said, "I have known Chandran for many years. You would do well to take up his offer. But I would advise you to see your own lawyer before you commit yourself.' As Devi did not have a lawyer of her own, she subsequently had a short private meeting with Chandran's solicitor, who failed to explain the risks involved in using her house as security. Devi then signed the relevant documents charging her house to the bank After getting the first loan, Chandran realised that his business still needed more capital. He then approached his long-time friend, Fuad, and persuaded him to provide his (Fuad's) shares in a public company as security for another loan from the same bank. Again, he promised a share in the profits of his business to Fuad. Over the years, Fuad had often sought investment advice from Chandran as he felt that Chandran was well versed in business affairs. They visited the bank together where they met the bank's in-house lawyer, who carefully explained the risks Involved to Fuad in Chandran's absence. Fuad then signed the relevant documents charging his shares to the bank to enable Chandran to obtain another loan. Devi and Fuad now regret entering their respective security contracts with the bank. Advise Devi and Fuad whether they can avoid their security contracts with the bank in Malaysian law. Would your answer be any different under the English law