E&E ELECTRICAL SOLUTIONS SDN BHD SPARKLE LITE MARKETING SDN BHD

E&E ELECTRICAL SOLUTIONS SDN BHD SPARKLE LITE MARKETING SDN BHD

The court found that an implied warranty term to accept and replace defective goods arose from a consistent course of dealings since 2016 and that the Defendant breached that term and is estopped from denying it; the parties' conduct also established an implied practice of extended payment (120 days) enforceable by conduct; Plaintiff entitled to repudiate and require acceptance of unsold goods and replacement of defective items; counterclaim dismissed.

Citation
BA-A52NCC-319-08/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Plaintiff (also Defendant in Consolidated Suit): E&E Electrical Solutions Sdn Bhd; Defendant (also Plaintiff in Consolidated Suit): Sparkle Lite Marketing Sdn Bhd
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
4 February 2022
Case Number
BA-A52NCC-319-08/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit Commercial Contract Dispute (breach of Warranty and Counterclaim) / Judgment (grounds of Judgment Dated 9 April 2022)
Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff in part; Defendant's counterclaim dismissed with no order as to costs
Legal Topics
Implied Terms, Warranty, Repudiation, Estoppel, Course of Dealings, Set Off, Admissibility of Computer Evidence, Damages
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Commercial Law Evidence Sales of Goods Implied Terms Warranty Repudiation Estoppel +4 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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

E&E Electrical Solutions Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff (also Defendant in Consolidated Suit)

Sparkle Lite Marketing Sdn Bhd

Defendant (also Plaintiff in Consolidated Suit)

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit Commercial Contract Dispute (breach of Warranty and Counterclaim) / Judgment (grounds of Judgment Dated 9 April 2022)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a term of warranty for return and replacement of goods by course of dealings
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant breached that warranty term and is estopped from denying it
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff was entitled to terminate/repudiate transactions and return all unsold/defective goods

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that an implied warranty term to accept and replace defective goods arose from a consistent course of dealings since 2016 and that the Defendant breached that term and is estopped from denying it; the parties' conduct also established an implied practice of extended payment (120 days) enforceable by conduct; Plaintiff entitled to repudiate and require acceptance of unsold goods and replacement of defective items; counterclaim dismissed.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Plaintiff in part; Defendant's counterclaim dismissed with no order as to costs

Orders

  • Declaration that the Defendant breached the warranty term
  • Defendant to accept unsold goods valued at RM119,532.80 as a clean break with the Plaintiff