Mielen Balakrishnan 1 ) Malayan Banking Bhd 2) Sime Darby Auto Connexion Sdn Bhd 3) Capital Intertrade Sdn Bhd

Mielen Balakrishnan 1 ) Malayan Banking Bhd 2) Sime Darby Auto Connexion Sdn Bhd 3) Capital Intertrade Sdn Bhd

Court found repeated major defects and replacement of key components (including engine) within the warranty period established that the vehicle was not of merchantable quality and not fit for purpose; that entitled the hirer to rescind under s.8 HPA 1967. Claims against the dealer and distributor were dismissed...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
WA-A52NCVC-409-05/2019 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Plaintiff: Mielen Balakrishnan; Defendant One: Malayan Banking Bhd; Defendant Two: Sime Darby Auto Connexion Sdn Bhd; Defendant Three: Capital Intertrade Sdn Bhd
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
30 July 2020
Case Number
WA-A52NCVC-409-05/2019 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Hire Purchase / Consumer Complaint for Breach of Implied Warranty and Rescission / Judgment at Trial (sessions Court)
Outcome
Plaintiffs claim partly allowed against Defendant One (bank); claims against Defendant Two and Defendant Three dismissed; bank's counterclaim dismissed; indemnity contribution by Defendant Three as ordered
Legal Topics
Implied Warranty, Merchantable Quality, Rescission Under S.8 HPA 1967, Indemnity, Quantum of Damages, Privity and Supersession of Dealer Obligations
Hire Purchase Act 1967 Sale of Goods Act 1957 Contracts Act 1950 Consumer Protection Law Evidence Act 1950 Implied Warranty Merchantable Quality Rescission Under S.8 HPA 1967 +3 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 6 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mielen Balakrishnan

Plaintiff

Malayan Banking Bhd

Defendant One

Sime Darby Auto Connexion Sdn Bhd

Defendant Two

Capital Intertrade Sdn Bhd

Defendant Three

Procedural Posture

Hire Purchase / Consumer Complaint for Breach of Implied Warranty and Rescission / Judgment at Trial (sessions Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff could rescind the hire-purchase agreement under s.8 HPA 1967 for breach of implied condition of merchantable quality under s.7 HPA 1967
  2. 2 Whether contractual liability of the vehicle dealer and distributor survived or was superseded by the hire-purchase agreement (impact of s.16 SGA and s.32 CPA)
  3. 3 Whether plaintiff proved liability and quantum of claimed damages and loss of use

Ratio Decidendi

Court found repeated major defects and replacement of key components (including engine) within the warranty period established that the vehicle was not of merchantable quality and not fit for purpose; that entitled the hirer to rescind under s.8 HPA 1967. Claims against the dealer and distributor were dismissed because contractual relations were superseded by the hire-purchase agreement per authority; an implied indemnity obligation existed between the bank and dealer such that the dealer must indemnify the bank for the refundable deposit (subject to depreciation). Other claimed damages were disallowed for failure of proof, remoteness or risk of unjust enrichment. Counterclaim by bank was...

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs claim partly allowed against Defendant One (bank); claims against Defendant Two and Defendant Three dismissed; bank's counterclaim dismissed; indemnity contribution by Defendant Three as ordered

Orders

  • Hire-purchase agreement dated 10.2.2017 between plaintiff and defendant one is cancelled
  • Plaintiff shall return the vehicle to Defendant One immediately