JUDGMENT

Ong Chee Kwan J:

Introduction

[1] This judgment deals yet again with the question whether a developer who is the ultimate beneficiary of all goods supplied by various suppliers for its property development, is obliged to pay the unpaid suppliers down the chain in the event that the developer's main contractor and or sub-contractors with whom the suppliers had contracted failed to make payments for the goods so supplied. Can the suppliers rely on s 71 of the Contract Act 1950 and or the cause of action for unjust enrichment to recover the outstanding sums due directly from the developer?

[2] In this case, the 1st Respondent had successfully claimed after a full trial against the Appellant the sum of RM 814,014.31 being the remaining outstanding sums with interest for special equipment and the related works done under a contract between the 1st Respondent and the 2nd Respondent (who was unrepresented at the trial) which had remained unpaid.

[3] The Appellant contended that it was not obliged to pay the 1st Respondent as there was no privity of contract between them. It was also contended that s 71 of the Contracts Act 1950 and or the principles of unjust enrichment simply did n