James Foong J:

This is an appeal from the decision of the learned Magistrate in Johor Bahru where he gave judgment against the appellant for the sum of RM18,625.31 as claimed by the respondent.

The facts of this case are rather simple and not in dispute. The appellant was a sales executive with The East Asiatic Co. (Malaysia) Bhd. which at the material time sells John Deere' tractors. He secured a purchaser, the 1st defendant, for the purchase of one John Deere tractor. In order to complete the sale he arranged hire purchase financing with the respondent for the 1st defendant which culminated with a Hire Purchase Agreement (P1) between the parties. In order to 'convince' the 1st defendant to purchase the said tractor, the appellant executed a Deed of Guarantee for the due performance of the 1st defendant of the terms stated in the Hire Purchase Agreement.

It is not in dispute between the parties that both the Hire Purchase Agreement and the Deed of Guarantee were signed by the 1st defendant and the appellant respectively on or before 11 January 1984. It is also not in dis- pute that when the Deed of Guarantee was executed by the appellant, it was a printed form with relevant particulars left blank.

When the hire purchase sum was to be relea- sed by the respondent, under this hire pur- chase transaction with the 1st defendant on 15 August 1984, the relevant particulars on both the Hire Purchase Agreement and the Deed of Guarantee were completed and the dates affixed thereto were 15 August 1984 respectively.

The 1st defendant defaulted to pay the hire purchase installments as stipulated under the Hire Purchase Agreement leading to the repossession of the said tractor. The said tractor was subsequently sold and the amount found due by the 1st defendant to the respondent was RM18,096.31 as claimed.

The 1st defendant defaulted in appearance and, judgment was taken against him by the respondent.

The appellant disputed the respondent's claim and basically his defence was that at the material time when he executed the Deed of Guarantee the relevant particulars were not typed therein. The appellant also contended that the said tractor after being repossessed was sold at below market value and that, he was not informed of the date of actual sale.

The learned Magistrate rightly decided that there was only one issue to be tried and that was, on the validity of the Deed of Guarantee with relevant parts left blank when the appellant executed thereon. The other allegation of the appellant in his statement of defence was not seriously challenged by the appellant, after relevant evidence on this matter was tendered by the respondent at trial.

On this appeal before me, the appellant besides taking on the issue of the validity of the Deed of Guarantee also argued that the respondent has failed to comply with s. 4A, 4B, 4C and 4D of the Hire Purchase Act 1967 . These sections relate to the requirements that the Hire Purchase Agreement to be in writing, that it must be signed and, that the contents therein must satisfy certain essential elements. It is rather embarassing to the appellant that in the submission of the respondent's Counsel during this appeal, it was revealed that the aforesaid sections only came into force on 1 June 1992, as the afore- said sections were inserted under an amendment act bearing number A813. Such being the case, there is no necessity to deal with this point as the transaction in this case took place in 1984.

The appellant's Counsel seems to base his argument on the issue of the validity of the Deed of Guarantee executed without the relevant particulars inserted at the material time of execution, on the basic principle that the fundamental elements on the formation of a contract have not been fulfilled. He also argued that since the appellant was sued on a guarantee, the Hire

Purchase Agreement being the principle document also bears no rele- vant particulars when executed. Contention of past conside