Intro1. Definition of Contract1.1 Elements of Contract2.0 Content2.1- IPAC 1-Issue: Whether there is a valid contract between Bryan can claim the extra sum from ABC Sdn Bhd despite it is past considerationPOL: (Explain English and Malaysian Law) (3 min case)Application: Applying the law to the facts...Conclusion: In conclusion...2.2IPAC 2Issue; Whether Bryan can sue ABC Sdn Bhd for the breach of contract on sale of office lot at Kota KemuningPOL:ApplicationConclusion:2.3 IPAC 3-Issue: Whether DEF Sdn Bhd is obliged to make additional payment despite...POL: (Explain English and Malaysian Law) (3 min case)Application:Conclusion:2.2 IPAC 4Issue: Whether Bryan can received monies from GHI Sdn BhdPOL: (3 min caseApplicationConclusion2.3 IPAC 5-2.4 IPAC 63.0 ConclusionStudents opinion on importance of the elements of consideration, intention and capacity in a contract*********************************************************************************( ALL WRITE MALAYSIA CASES , DONT WRITE US OR UK CASES )

Assignment Question Bryan owns a company called RenovationZu Sdn Bhd which specialises in renovation, re-construction old apartments and building. Bryan received a sub-contract from ABC Son Bhd to refurbish 20 units of old flats in Selayang. The contract states that the total amount payable for the refurbishment is RM550,000-00 and Bryan will have to complete the project by June 2024. However, Bryan realised that he underestimated the cost of repair which now exceeds RM550,000-00. Bryan approached ABC Son Bhd and demanded an extra RM 150,000-00 to complete the project, which if not paid to him, Bryan could not do the task. ABC Son Bhd agreed with the extra payment because they were worried that the project might be delayed, and legal repercussions might ensue. However, once the task was completed, ABC Sin Bhd refuse to make the additional payment to Renovation2u Son Bhd. Furthermore, Bryan also enters a contract with ABC Sdn Bhd for a purchase of an office lot at Kota Kemuning. ABC San Bhd promised that upon signing of the Sale and Purchase Agreement which will be in 3 months' time, Bryan will pay the full purchase price of RM10,000 for the office and is the owner of the office lot. Recently, Bryan was notified by ABC San Bhd that they no longer want to sell the office lot. Bryan is enraged and felt deceived and would like to initiate legal action. To add to his ongoing problems, in April 2024, Bryan's company Renovation2u Son Bhd entered an agreement with DEF Son Bhd to renovate DEF Son Bhd's new low cost- housing project at Seri Setia, Shah Alam. The renovation cost RM350,000 and DEF Sdn Bhd had made payment for it. Recently. while the company was under audit by PPMG, it was found that the agreement with DEF Son Bhd was below cost. The reconstruction and renovation actually cost the company about RM60,000 more and Bryan, as director of the company decided to request extra payment from DEF Son Bhd but it was dismissed. Bryan then proceed in appointing a lawyer to sue DEF Son Bhd. Since a lawsuit is pending, DEF Son Bhd engaged a law firm and had advised that DEF Son Bhd is not accountable for the miscalculation or negligence of Bryan. However, DEF Son Bhd wanted to settle the matter amicably and hence send a letter together with a cheque amounting to RM6,000 as full and final settlement without admission to any liability. The RM 6,000 funds came from GHI Sdn Bhd's subsidiary company, DEF Son Bhd. Bryan check in the money but did not indicate his acceptance to this concession nor agreed to the arrangement and upon drawing the monies of RM6,000, Bryan instructed his lawyers to claim the remaining RM54,000. DEF Son Bhd argued that payment has been made since Bryan had draw the cheque. Instead Bryan argued that he did not agree to the arrangement and the monies came from GHI San Bhd which is not a privy to the contract. Due to the various miscalculations, Bryan's business is running at a loss and he is in a dire financial situation. At the same time Bryan is encountering various personal problems. To make his wife happy, Bryan promised her to buy her a new Chanel Bag worth RM35,000 at the end of the month. However, at the end of the month, because of financial constraint due to the various losses that Bryan's companies are encountering, he decided not to buy his wife the bag and instead bought a fake one instead. Felicia, the wife enraged over this and threatened to sue for breach of promise. At the same time. Bryan found out that his son, Alex, aged 14 has not been paying his tuition fees for preparation of Alex SPM exam. The Tuition Centre would like to sue Alex. Advice Bryan on all the legal predicaments 100 Marks