ANG WEI JUN KEY POWER SDN BHD

ANG WEI JUN KEY POWER SDN BHD

On the balance of probabilities the court found the plaintiff to be the registered owner but that the plaintiff failed to prove the defendant made representations amounting to a warranty that the vehicle was fit for purpose at the time of sale, the one-month warranty had expired before the engine failure, plaintiff...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
JA-A72NCvC-585-08/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Plaintiff: Ang Wei Jun; Defendant: Key Power Sdn Bhd
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
10 November 2022
Case Number
JA-A72NCvC-585-08/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim (sale of Goods / Consumer Dispute) / Full Trial Judgment and Interlocutory Application (motion to Set Aside Order Lampiran 107)
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed; Lampiran 107 (application to set aside earlier order) dismissed
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Fitness for Purpose, Warranty, Fraud Allegation to Set Aside Order, Ownership of Chattel, Burden of Proof (balance of Probabilities), Expert Evidence, Plaintiff Bound by Pleadings, Caveat Emptor, Damages Assessment
Contract Sale of Goods Consumer Protection Evidence Civil Procedure Tort (damages) Misrepresentation Fitness for Purpose +8 more

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ang Wei Jun

Plaintiff

Key Power Sdn Bhd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Claim (sale of Goods / Consumer Dispute) / Full Trial Judgment and Interlocutory Application (motion to Set Aside Order Lampiran 107)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff or SD1 was the true owner of the Toyota Hilux
  2. 2 Whether the seller's representations made the vehicle unfit for its intended purpose (fit for purpose / misrepresentation)
  3. 3 Whether there was a pre-existing engine defect causing the engine fire and whether the defendant is liable

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the court found the plaintiff to be the registered owner but that the plaintiff failed to prove the defendant made representations amounting to a warranty that the vehicle was fit for purpose at the time of sale, the one-month warranty had expired before the engine failure, plaintiff did not notify defendant or allow inspection, plaintiff failed to adduce expert evidence proving engine defect and causation attributable to the defendant, and the claimed quantum was not proved; the alleged fraud in obtaining the earlier order was not established. Accordingly the plaintiff's claim and the application (Lampiran 107) were dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed; Lampiran 107 (application to set aside earlier order) dismissed

Orders

  • Claim dismissed with costs to the defendant to be taxed according to scale
  • Lampiran 107 dismissed with costs in the cause