Loan agreements can be established through credible oral testimony, and the burden of proof rests on the party asserting a claim or defense.

Headnote:(A) Evidence Act 1950 - Sections 101 and 103 - Claim for a friendly loan - Plaintiffs alleged a loan of USD 600,000 was granted to defendants, which remains unpaid - The defendants denied the loan, claiming an investment scheme involving a third party - Court found plaintiffs provided evidence of loan, while defendants' claims were mere assertions without sufficient proof (Paras 12, 14, 15, 24)

(B) Loan agreements - Verbal agreements can be enforceable, provided sufficient evidence supports them - The absence of clear documentation does not negate the existence of a debt if supported by credible testimony (Paras 23, 28)

(C) Burden of Proof - It rests on the party asserting the claim - When a defendant claims a third party is responsible, they must provide evidence of this assertion - Failure to call the crucial third party for evidence led to an adverse inference against the defendants (Paras 26, 34).

Background facts:

The 1st Plaintiff is a partner in the 2nd Plaintiff which supplies motorcycles and accessories which has its address in Sungai Buloh, Selangor.

The 1st Defendant at the material time was the Malaysian Ambassador in the Netherlands.

The 2nd defendant was a customs officer at the Jabatan Kastam Diraja Malaysia and is the younger brother of the 1st Defendant.