Question Two (2) ....................................................................................................Plaskin Company and the Doodledoo Sdn Bhd had entered into an agreement ('the original agreement') whereby the Doodledoo Sdn Bhd appointed the Plaskin Company to provide the services of supplying Nanotag proprietary fuel markers pursuant to the Plaskin Company's NanoTag Program to mark subsidised fuel and for other related services. The original agreement was for a term of five years which expired on 31 March 2011. After the expiry of the original agreement the Plaskin Company, pursuant to a series of correspondence between the parties continued to provide the services as described under the original agreement to the Doodledoo Sdn Bhd, notwithstanding the expiry of the original agreement. Such services were provided for a period from 31 March 2011 to 31 October 2011 ('the interim period'). The Doodledoo Sdn Bhd accepted the Plaskin Company's services during the interim period. During the interim period negotiations were conducted for a new agreement on terms similar to the original agreement. However, eventually no new contract was awarded. The Plaskin Company was not paid for its services during the interim period. The Plaskin Company thus filed this claim against the Doodledoo Sdn Bhd for breach of contract, or alternatively for work done. ......................................................................................................By referring to the law of contract in Malaysia, discuss whether Plaskin Company may recover reasonable compensation in this case. (5m)