Mohamed Dzaiddin bin Hj. Abdullah SCJ:

This appeal concerns an interpretation of a clause in a letter of guarantee dealing with the service of a notice of demand. The material clause in the guarantee states as follows:

17. Any notice may be served on the undersigned or his/their executors administrators or legal representatives either personally or by sending the same through the post in an envelope addressed to the last known place of address of the person to be served and a notice so sent shall be deemed to be served on the day following that on which it is posted.

The respondent, who was the second defendant in the action, was sued under the letter of guarantee dated 3 October 1984 (the said guarantee following the default of the principal borrowers, whereby, as a director, he guaranteed to pay the appellant bank all sums due and owing under a revolving bankers acceptance facility granted by the bank to the principal borrowers. His liability was, however, limited to RM2.0 million. Being an "on demand" guarantee, the appellant's solicitors sent him a notice dated 4 March 1988 by AR registered post to his last known address, demanding payment of the amount owing. On 19