Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Offer and acceptance

Legal area

Court

14 Oct 2025

1. ) Dato Sri' Tan Hoe Beng 2. ) ZCM Minerals Sdn Bhd Lee Ean Lean

Citation

BA-12B-116-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12B-116-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court affirmed the Sessions Court: the collective email correspondence, subsequent conduct, performance, and payments established enforceable contracts for the three assignments and demonstrated acceptance and certainty of terms; the 1st Appellant acted personally in creating obligations and is therefore jointly liable with the company; there was no basis for appellate interference.
8 Jul 2025

1. ) KUSATEX SDN BHD 2. ) SHAFIQURRAHMAN BIN HAJI SHAMSUDDIN WIRA FOAM INDUSTRIES SDN BHD

Citation

BA-12BNCvC-25-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12BNCvC-25-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to prove existence and performance of a binding contract because it did not produce invoices, delivery orders or corroborative documentary evidence of delivery or acceptance, and gave no explanation for their absence warranting an adverse inference under s114(g); the POs alone and oral assertions were insufficient to establish acceptance or consideration; therefore the Sessions Court's finding of a valid contract was plainly wrong and the defendants' appeal on the main claim is allowed while the counterclaim fails for lack of proof.
29 Aug 2023

BUSINESS LEAP (M) BHD XXXX

Citation

WA-21NCVC-49-04/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-21NCVC-49-04/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof that a binding SPA existed because execution of the SPA was a clear condition precedent and no SPA was executed; plaintiff also failed to comply with the unambiguous terms of the accepted second offer despite multiple extensions; defendants lawfully revoked the offer for plaintiff's default and properly forfeited the earnest deposit; consequently specific performance and damages are not granted and claim is dismissed.
24 Jul 2023

Rong Cheng Casket & Funeral Services Sdn Bhd Kong Sew Chu

Citation

JC-A72NCvC-101-11/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JC-A72NCvC-101-11/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)

On the balance of probabilities the court found a contract for funeral services was formed by the parties' conduct (offer, acceptance and consideration), there was no cogent evidence of undue influence or misrepresentation, unjust enrichment did not bar the plaintiff's claim, and therefore the plaintiff proved entitlement to the claimed sum; claim allowed.
26 Jun 2023

PAN MALAYAN LOGISTICS SDN BHD YL SMELTING SDN BHD

Citation

BL-11B-2-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BL-11B-2-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The magistrate correctly found the Offer to Lease constituted a binding contract upon acceptance under Clause 6 with valid consideration (earnest deposit); the defendant aborted the transaction and was therefore contractually obliged to pay the liquidated damages stipulated in Clause 3; appellate intervention was unwarranted because the magistrate's factual findings were not plainly wrong nor lacking judicial appreciation of evidence.
7 Mar 2023

S.G. CABLES SDN BHD TRANSMISSION TECHNOLOGY SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-22NCC-501-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-501-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

No binding new sub-contract existed because the quotations amounted to a tender exercise without acceptance or letter of award, essential contractual documents and conditions precedent were unmet, and the work performed fell under the pre-existing Supply Agreement (already paid); the Plaintiff also failed to prove the contractual basis or the quantum claimed.
12 Dec 2022

HAIYAN SOLUTION MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD

Citation

DA-22NCvC-10-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-22NCvC-10-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found on balance that the Plaintiff knowingly signed the second letter of offer which expressly superseded and cancelled the first; therefore the first letter was extinguished under section 63 of the Contracts Act 1950 and any alleged failure to comply with clause 13(a) became irrelevant; Plaintiff failed to prove any recoverable loss and the claim was dismissed with costs.
3 Nov 2022

STARFLEX ENERGY (M) SDN. BHD. GEMA ANTARA SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-22C-41-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22C-41-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held each PO accepted by the plaintiff constituted a separate enforceable contract; SCAN was authentic and SP1 had authority to approve it (actual, implied and ostensible), proving 95% completion. Milestone (e) did not bar recovery for the proved 95% work and an implied term required defendant to pay for that work. Plaintiff's demobilization was lawful due to defendant's non-payment; defendant breached by withholding the balance. Plaintiff entitled to payment for balance (RM624,625) and for three additional pumps (RM93,876) with pre-judgment interest at 5% p.a. from due date to judg…
18 Mar 2022

ABDUL HALIM BIN MOHAMAD 1. ) Perbadanan Kemajuan Pertanian Negeri Pahang 2. ) XORIX SDN BHD 3. ) Azmy Bin A Hamid

Citation

BA-22NCC-105-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCC-105-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found there was no concluded contract between the plaintiff and the first defendant because the 17.03.2021 letter was an invitation to treat, the plaintiff's email of interest did not amount to an absolute and unqualified acceptance, the plaintiff never made the required counter-offer or proposal by the deadline, and the SSA did not confer on the plaintiff an enforceable right of first refusal; consequently there was no serious issue to be tried, the balance of convenience favoured the defendants and damages were an adequate remedy; the interlocutory application for injunction was d…
7 Mar 2022

WARDROBE ROOM SDN. BHD. A PLUS FILM SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-A72NCC-8407-03/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

WA-A72NCC-8407-03/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)

On the balance of probabilities the court found that negotiations via WhatsApp and subsequent conduct established a contract and that services were supplied; documentary evidence and communications showed the defendant acknowledged and recorded an amended invoice of RM33,850 which remained outstanding, therefore plaintiff proved entitlement to RM33,850 plus interest and costs.