Gopal Sri Ram JCA:

This appeal concerns the law of hire purchase. So far as I am aware, there is no reported Malaysian case on the point at issue here. Certainly none was cited to us during argument.

It is not necessary to recall the facts in any detail. They have been discussed by the learned intermediate appellate judge, Abdul Malik Ishak J with his usual thoroughness. His judgment affirming the Sessions Court is reported in [1996] 1 CLJ 471. There is no attempt by the appellant to re-open the facts. That would have proved a most onerous task. It is the practice of courts of second appeal not to interfere with concurrent findings of fact save in the rarest of cases. See, Wong Thin Yit v. Mohd Ali[1974] 1 MLJ 1.

But here there is only an issue of law. It is whether the guarantee given by the second respondent dealer to the appellant finance company is a nullity. The sessions court held that it was. The High Court affirmed that finding. The principal ground on which the learned judge held the contract of guarantee void was that it contravened the Hire Purchase Act 1967 ("the Act"). That appears from three passages in his judgment. The first is at p. 55 of the record of app