Nari and Kim are partners of NaVBio Trading, a new firm that produces KF94 face mask products. There are three other partners in NaVBio Trading but do not participate in business management. The product information in the pamphlets and the NaVBio Trading website states that the NaVBio KF94 face mask has 4 layers and uses non -woven fabrics that are safe and comfortable to breathe. Nari also gave some samples of face masks to some pharmacies. As a result, in November 2021, Nari won a contract to supply KF94 face masks to Cerya Pharmacy and Suka Pharmacy, each worth RM72,000 a year. NaVBio Trading started supplying products in January 2022.

Last May, Kim, who was responsible for procuring materials for the production of the product, became worried when he found out that the company that supplied the non -woven fabric was no longer operating because it had burnt down by fire. Kim had to deal with another supplier, Chitu Sdn Bhd. Manufacturing costs increased due to Chitu Sdn Bhd fabrics are more expensive even at the same quality. At the same time, delivery costs and some other costs also increased. Kim asked Nari to re -discuss with Cerya Pharmacy and Suka Pharmacy regarding the contract price as the increase in all the costs resulted in no profit being made. Kim also made a financial loan of RM100,000 from Bank Kaya for the use of NaVBio Trading without the knowledge of other partners and exceeded double the loan amount limit at any one time agreed by the partners.

Based on the above situation, please answer the following questions:

i) If Cerya Pharmacy and Suka Pharmacy refused to renegotiate the contracted price, whether NaVBio Trading could use frustration of contract as an excuse? Support your answer with the relevant provision of the Contracts Act 1950 and / or case.

The answers must be based on the legal sources and principles applied in Malaysia.

ii) Explain if Bank Kaya could claim the debt from NaVBio Trading and all NaVBio Trading partners although the loan was made by Kim without the other partners' knowledge and exceeded double the loan amount limit prescribed by the firm. Support your answer with the relevant provisions of the Partnership Act 1961 and / or cases. The answers must be based on the legal sources and principles applied in Malaysia.