3) Whether the debt by Shan & Chan can move on part of payment by third party?

Under the principle of consideration, the court recognises a consideration by a third party than the promisee even though the agreement is made by the promisor and the promisee. However, under English law of contract, a waiver of a right that is not supported by consideration is void. In, Malaysia, exception to this general rule is provided under section 64 which stated that every promisee may dispense with or remit wholly or in part the performance of the promise made to him or may extend the time for such performance or may accept instead of any satisfaction which he thinks fit. This provision laid down the rules of performance. Under this provision, waiver of performance without any consideration is valid. One of the methods of waiver performance in case of GWA and Chan & Shan is part payment by a 3rd party in discharge of a debt was allowed. In this problem, Chan & Shan refuse to pay the outstanding instalment and interest owing that is burden but they suggested that only RM 1000 of the loan could be paid by their respective wives and this would be considered as full satisfaction of the debt. It can be seen here that, there was an agreement with GWA (promisor) and Chan & Shan (promisee) because GWA has already agreed to and accepted payment of a lesser sum than the debt by respective wives, in full satisfaction of the Chan & Shan debt. This payment of RM 2000 is a discharged of the whole claim. This case will be covered by section 64 that provides several ways of waiver of performance that is part of the payment by a 3rd party in discharge of debt is allowed. It is referring to the illustration (c) to section 64, A owes B RM 5000. C pays to B RM 1000 and B accept them, in satisfaction of his claim on A. This payment is a discharge of the whole claim. The case to refer here is Hirachand Punamchand v Temple. It was held that where a third party enters into an agreement with a creditor by which the creditors accepts payment of a lesser sum than the debt, in full satisfaction of the debtors obligation, the creditor can sue the debtor for the difference. Another cases is Kerpa Singh v Bariam Singh, B owed K $8,869. B son wrote a letter to K offering $4000 in full satisfaction of his fathers debt. Bs son endorsed a cheque for the amount, stipulating that if K refused to accept his offer. K must return the cheque. Ks legal advisor cashed the cheque and retained the money. They then proceeded to secure the balance of the debt. The court held that the acceptance of the cheque from the debtors son in full satisfaction precluded them from claiming the balance. As a conclusion, when GWA already been considered of RM 1000 from the Chan & Shan wife as the payment of a lesser sum in the satisfaction of greater sum precluded promisor from claiming the balance. Thus, the payment is a discharge of the whole claim.