The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish claims on a balance of probabilities, and failure to provide sufficient evidence results in dismissal of the claim.

Introduction

[1] This is an action by the Plaintiff ("P") against the Defendant ("D") for the payment of commission in the sum of RM 1,005,066.62 pertaining to the sale of certain housing units.

[2] After a full trial, I dismissed P's claim. Here are the grounds of my judgment.

Background Facts

[3] The parties herein entered into an oral agreement for P to find buyers for the housing units at (i) Quay West, (ii) The Stone and (iii) P3 Residence (collectively the "three projects"). Whereby D would source units from the developers of the three projects and P would secure buyers for those units. In consideration thereof, D will pay a commission to P.

[4] Given that the agreement between the parties was not formalised in writing, unsurprisingly, there is uncertainty regarding its terms and conditions. The parties offered their respective version of what the oral agreement entails, and what had transpired in this matter.

[5] P's version is this.

(a) For the work done by P, which is to act as an agent to secure buyers for the allocated units in the three projects, D agreed to pay a commission to P.

(b) The commission is based on a percentage of 2 %, 4 % and 7 % of the net price of the booking made by a buyer secured by P. The percentage would vary according to the package chosen by the buyer.

(c) At para 19 of the statement of claim, P alluded to a "rebate package of 28 %", whatever that means. P pleaded the following:

"19. In relation to that, from the very beginning, the Plaintiff has stated that the director of the Defendant's company, June Goh, has promised that with the director of the Plaintiff's company that the Defendant would give a rebate package of 28% and a sales commission of 4% for Quay West project."

(d) P has successfully sold:- (i) 33 units at Quay West; (ii) 16 units at The Stone; and (iii) 2 units at P3 Residence.

(e) Despite P fulfilling its obligation under the oral agreement, D refused to pay the applicable commission amounting to RM 1,005,066.62.

(f) The aforementioned sum is arrived at as follows.

[6] According to P, the basic components of the oral agreement are as follows:

(a) P would promote and advertise the units in the three projects that are allocated to D, with a view to getting buyers to buy the said units;

(b) D agreed to pay to P a commission of 2%, 4% or 7% based on the sale price of the units;

(c) The buyers secured by P would contact or go to the developer's office to get more information about the project, and make a booking if interested;

(d) If there is a buyer secured by P who has made a booking for a unit at the price offered to D by the developer, D will send the booking form to P. This is to notify that P has successfully secured a buyer. And for P's record of the number of buyers which it has successfully obtained for D;

(e) P would then send a proforma invoice to D to confirm the units that have been purchased by the buyers secured by P. Also to confirm the selling price and the agreed commission to be paid by D, for each unit purchased by the buyers secured by P;

(f) After receiving the proforma invoice, D would confirm the same if the information therein is correct. This is for the purpose of P preparing the invoice, where the proforma invoice and the invoice at this early stage are for 2%, 4% and 7% of the sales payment;

(g) The proforma invoice is to inform D of the amount to be paid to P; and

(h) After the re