The Plaintiff is a stockbroking company. By a written agreement dated 28 December 1993, the Defendant accepted the appointment as agent of the Plaintiff to trade and deal in stocks and shares in the name of the Plaintiff. Pursuant to the said agreement, the Defendant agreed that he shall indemnify the Plaintiff against all losses, liabilities, claims and demands that may be suffered or incurred in connection with or arising from transactions in securities dealt through the Defendant.

Losses were incurred in the accounts under the care of the Defendant. As at 25 August 2000, the Defendant incurred contra losses. The Plaintiff used the Defendant's deposit and commission to reduce the losses in the said client's accounts. The Plaintiff prays against the Defendant for:-

a) contra losses for the sum of RM250,258.41;

b) outstanding purchase price for the sum of RM26,559.58;

c) purchase price for one purchase contract for the sum of RM19,017.20;

d) late payment charges amounting to RM103,342.86 as at 31 May 1995;

e) late payment charges amounting to RM158,831.34 from 1 June 1995 to 25 August 2000;

f) late payment charges on RM295,835.30 at the rate of 12% per annum from 26 August 2000 until full and final payment; and

g) costs.

The Defendant counter claimed for:

a) return of deposit of RM50,000;

b) commission at 40% (before statutory deduction); and

c) return of the Defendant's remisier's licence.

The issues to be tried are:

a) Whether a Letter of Demand ought to precede the Plaintiff's claim;

b) If the answer is in the positive, whether the Plaintiff made a demand.

c) In respect of contra losses which have accrued:

(i) whether the Plaintiff ought to force sell the shares within T+8 under all circumstances;

(ii) whether the contra losses have been reduced fully by way of set off from the Defendant's commission and deposit;

d) the accuracy of the contract notes and contra statements;

e) the correctness of the Plaintiff's claim under the prayers (b) and (c) of the Amended Statement of Claim;

f) whether the Plaintiff is entitled for late payment charges and correctness of that claim.

During the trial, three witnesses gave evidence on behalf of the Plaintiff. PW1, Puan Rokayah bt Mohamed Mustapha gave evidence about the Agency Agreement to show that the Defendant was a remisier with the Plaintiff. The Agency Agreement provides that the Defendant would indemnify the Plaintiff for all losses arising from his client's accounts.

PW1 gave evidence on the duties of the Defendant as a remisier. She said that the trades executed by the Defendant on behalf of his clients were followed by the issuance of the Daily Business Done Report and the Client Outstanding Position Report to the Defendant as written confirmation. PW1 elaborated on the Plaintiff's claim against the Defendant under the various heads. Supporting documents under each head were referred to. Evidence was given on the accrual of these claims. PW1 also testified about the late payment charges.

PW1 stated that the clients and the Defendant had never disputed the purchases despite the clause in the Contract Notes that entitled them to dispute within 24 hours of receipt of the Contract Notes. PW1 also testified that the Defendant, having been given the Client Outstanding Position Report and the Business Done Report, did not dispute any of the transactions. PW1 subsequently testified that that the Plaintiff had issued two memos to the Defendant notifying him of the outstanding amount in his clients' accounts. The Plaintiff demanded that the Defendant make payment for the said outstanding amount. The Plaintiff's Letter of Demand was dated 6 July 1995.

PW2, Ms Wong Wai Yuan is the Plaintiff's accounts' executive. PW2 testified that her job was to prepare the summary of the Remisier's commission earnings. PW2 prepared the commission earnings based on the documents before her and her knowledge of those documents. PW2 testified as to how much of the commissions belonging t