JUDGMENT

Salleh Abas LP:

We heard this appeal on 10 June 1987 and allowed it with costs. We now give out reasons for doing so.

This was a claim in the High Court Kuala Lumpur by UMBC, the plaintiff, for money lent to the first defendant from time to time under overdraft facilities and interest thereon. The loans were guaranteed under continuing guarantees and indemnities by the other five defendants for due payments of all money owing by the first defendant still remaining unpaid on the general balance of the first defendant's account with the plaintiff. The several guarantees and indemnities and their amounts are particularised at para. 4A & B of the statement of claim. When the defendants failed to pay the stated sum the plaintiff filed a writ and a statement of claim against them.

The main issue in this appeal is whether the notice sent by the plaintiff was a proper demand under the guarantees. It was conceded that all the guarantors received carbon copies of the notice of demand meant for the first defendant. The notice reads as follows:

Please Take Notice that unless the total sum of RM307,458.57 (which was subsequently corrected to RM332,716.36: see p. 73) plus interest state