BA-11B-15-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

BA-11B-15-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court found the parties had agreed to the quotation showing delivery term 4-16 weeks and a 40% deposit; on the agreed timeline the Defendant ordered the machines from China and the final delivery date was 10.01.2018, therefore the Plaintiff cancelled prematurely on 17.11.2017. The Sessions Court erred by relying on facts not pleaded by the Plaintiff and by accepting an alternative delivery term. The Defendant had fulfilled its contractual obligations and was entitled to specific performance and the balance purchase price; costs were awarded to the Defendant.

Citation
BA-11B-15-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Macpack Machineries Sdn Bhd; Respondent/plaintiff: Winner A & C Trading
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
21 October 2022
Case Number
BA-11B-15-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Sessions Court decision dated 17.09.2021 set aside in part; Defendant's counterclaim allowed for specific performance and balance payment (prayers 1 and 2 of paragraph 38 only); costs awarded to Defendant.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Breach of Contract, Delivery Terms, Deposits, Pleadings
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Civil Procedure Evidence Specific Performance Breach of Contract Delivery Terms Deposits Pleadings

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Macpack Machineries Sdn Bhd

Appellant/defendant

Winner A & C Trading

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Which quotation/terms governed the contract (delivery period and deposit percentage)
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant ordered/imported and had the machines ready for delivery
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff validly cancelled the contract and was entitled to refund of deposit

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found the parties had agreed to the quotation showing delivery term 4-16 weeks and a 40% deposit; on the agreed timeline the Defendant ordered the machines from China and the final delivery date was 10.01.2018, therefore the Plaintiff cancelled prematurely on 17.11.2017. The Sessions Court erred by relying on facts not pleaded by the Plaintiff and by accepting an alternative delivery term. The Defendant had fulfilled its contractual obligations and was entitled to specific performance and the balance purchase price; costs were awarded to the Defendant.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Sessions Court decision dated 17.09.2021 set aside in part; Defendant's counterclaim allowed for specific performance and balance payment (prayers 1 and 2 of paragraph 38 only); costs awarded to Defendant.

Orders

  • Set aside Sessions Court decision dated 17.09.2021
  • Allow Defendant's appeal