QVC ROCK PRODUCTS SDN. BHD POHMIX KUARI SDN. BHD

QVC ROCK PRODUCTS SDN. BHD POHMIX KUARI SDN. BHD

The SPA was a single, indivisible lump‑sum contract covering Lot A, Lot B and machinery; there was insufficient evidence of an express negligent misrepresentation by the respondent to induce entry into the SPA; the appellant failed to carry out reasonable inspection so caveat emptor applied; clause 15.2 precluded reliance on extra‑contractual representations; alleged pre‑TOL quarrying did not render the SPA void for illegality; accordingly the High Court judgment finding the appellant liable and dismissing its counterclaim was affirmed.

Citation
B-02(NCvC)(W)-724-04/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant/defendant: QVC Rock Products Sdn Bhd; Respondent/plaintiff: Pohmix Kuari Sdn Bhd
Court
NCvC
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
22 January 2024
Case Number
B-02(NCvC)(W)-724-04/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (contract Dispute Sale of Quarry Operations) / Court of Appeal — After‑trial Appeal, Judgment Entered
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment dated 20 April 2022 affirmed
Legal Topics
Divisibility of Contract, Condition Precedent, Caveat Emptor (buyer Beware), Illegality, Rescission, Non‑reliance Clause, Damages/debt Recovery
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Tort (negligent Misrepresentation) Property/land Law (quarry) Civil Procedure Divisibility of Contract Condition Precedent Caveat Emptor (buyer Beware) Illegality +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

QVC Rock Products Sdn Bhd

Appellant/defendant

Pohmix Kuari Sdn Bhd

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (contract Dispute Sale of Quarry Operations) / Court of Appeal — After‑trial Appeal, Judgment Entered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the SPA is a single unified contract or divisible into separate contracts for Lot A and Lot B
  2. 2 Whether the respondent made a negligent misrepresentation inducing the appellant to enter the SPA
  3. 3 Whether caveat emptor bars the appellant's claim

Ratio Decidendi

The SPA was a single, indivisible lump‑sum contract covering Lot A, Lot B and machinery; there was insufficient evidence of an express negligent misrepresentation by the respondent to induce entry into the SPA; the appellant failed to carry out reasonable inspection so caveat emptor applied; clause 15.2 precluded reliance on extra‑contractual representations; alleged pre‑TOL quarrying did not render the SPA void for illegality; accordingly the High Court judgment finding the appellant liable and dismissing its counterclaim was affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment dated 20 April 2022 affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • High Court judgment dated 20 April 2022 affirmed