Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Delivery obligations

  • 5 Jan 2026

    CENTRAL SUGARS REFINERY SDN BHD HOLSTEN MARKETING (M) SDN BHD.

    Citation
    BA-22NCvC-155-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BA-22NCvC-155-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Contract B as varied by the Addendum governed the parties' relationship; Holsten breached the Addendum by failing to deliver the contracted quantities and ceasing deliveries after 23 January 2020; the alleged non-payment of RM164,000 did not amount to a repudiatory breach and did not justify cessation; CSR validly terminated the contract and is entitled to repayment of the undelivered portion of the deposit with contractual late delivery interest and costs; Holsten cannot forfeit the deposit under section 75 as forfeiture would be disproportionate and serve as a penalty; Holsten's counterclai…

  • 1 Apr 2022

    WA-22NCC-347-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Citation
    WA-22NCC-347-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    WA-22NCC-347-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Court found a binding contract existed governed by the tender documents and KFN002/2018; FIAM terms did not apply and the alleged 21 December 2017 agreement and its timetable were not authentic or communicated to the plaintiff; delivery period extended to 30 September 2018 under the akuan, defendant accepted deliveries without protest so time became at large and defendant acquiesced to any delays; defendant therefore not entitled to late delivery penalty and plaintiff entitled to principal claim of RM4,138,780.60 but not to FIAM late payment interest or SOGA interest.

  • 20 Jan 2022

    SYNERGY SPECTACULAR SDN BHD DELEUM PRIMERA SDN BHD

    Citation
    WA-22NCVC-508-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    WA-22NCVC-508-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Plaintiff repeatedly and continuously delayed delivery of goods causing a breach going to the root of the contract; defendant validly gave notice(s) making time of the essence and lawfully terminated under Purchase Order terms which superseded plaintiff's quotation; payment milestones required full delivery before 60% became due so plaintiff's invoices were not payable; defendant properly rejected late deliveries; defendant failed to prove entitlement to claimed rental costs and LAD was unconscionable in the circumstances, therefore plaintiff's claim is dismissed, declaration of lawful termin…