please assist

The first issue in this case is whether she is bound to pay the balance of the loan or not ? According to Section 64 of the Contracts Act 1950, a creditor may accept a lesser sum in satisfaction of the whole even though the lesser sum was paid at the same time and at the same place at which the greater sum was payable. By referring to case " Associated Pan Malaysia Cement Sdn. Bhd. V. Syarikat Teknikal & Kejuruteraan Sdn. Bhd. The court held that payment of a lesser sum on the day in satisfaction of a greater sum could not be any satisfaction for the whole because by no possibility a lesser sum can be satisfaction to the plaintiff for a greater sum. The court made certain qualifications to the above rule. The following payments of a smaller sum at the creditor's request are sufficient consideration. From the statement, Carmen cannot pay the money she borrowed from Tatiana before the date that both of them agreed to settle it. Tatiana wants to sue Carmen, but her father, Boss offered to paid for RM80 000. Tatiana agreed to proposal from hes father and she received RM80 000 as the settlement for RM200 000. In Conclusion, Carmen is not bound to pay the balance of the loan because Tatiana already accept the proposal from her father for settlement for RM80 000 for the loan