MALTOOL INDUSTRIES SDN BHD 1. ) THRIVE GLORY SDN BHD 2. ) BERMAZ MOTOR TRADING SDN BHD

MALTOOL INDUSTRIES SDN BHD 1. ) THRIVE GLORY SDN BHD 2. ) BERMAZ MOTOR TRADING SDN BHD

The appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the vehicle was not of merchantable quality or unfit for purpose because it did not call expert or technical evidence to establish the nature, cause and persistence of alleged defects; the unilateral total rejection was premature given substantial remaining warranty cover and available remedial repair; therefore the Sessions Court's requirement for expert evidence was correct and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
WA-12BNCC-35-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Maltool Industries Sdn Bhd; 1st Respondent/defendant: Thrive Glory Sdn Bhd; 2nd Respondent/defendant: Bermaz Motor Trading Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
21 June 2023
Case Number
WA-12BNCC-35-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Sessions Court / High Court (commercial Division) Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs in favour of the Respondents
Legal Topics
Merchantable Quality, Fitness for Purpose, Rejection of Goods, Warranty Remedies, Expert Evidence, Burden of Proof
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Sale of Goods Consumer Protection Commercial Law Evidence Law Merchantable Quality Fitness for Purpose Rejection of Goods +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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maltool Industries Sdn Bhd

Appellant/plaintiff

Thrive Glory Sdn Bhd

1st Respondent/defendant

Bermaz Motor Trading Sdn Bhd

2nd Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Sessions Court / High Court (commercial Division) Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the vehicle was of merchantable quality and reasonably fit for purpose
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was entitled to reject the vehicle
  3. 3 Whether expert evidence was required and the Sessions Court erred in requiring it

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the vehicle was not of merchantable quality or unfit for purpose because it did not call expert or technical evidence to establish the nature, cause and persistence of alleged defects; the unilateral total rejection was premature given substantial remaining warranty cover and available remedial repair; therefore the Sessions Court's requirement for expert evidence was correct and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs in favour of the Respondents

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs in favour of the Respondents
  • Respondents to be awarded costs to be taxed if not agreed