The requirement for expert evidence is essential in proving vehicle defects and establishing claims under the Sale of Goods Act, as failure to provide such evidence is fatal to the claim.

[1] This is an appeal by the Appellant against the decision of the Sessions Court dated 17 August 2022, which, after a full trial, dismissed its claim against the Respondents. The claim concerned a brand new Mazda vehicle which the Appellant alleged was defective and not of merchantable quality. The Appellant sought compensation for the vehicle's value and damages for loss of use, having unilaterally rejected the vehicle on the basis that the Respondents had allegedly failed to rectify the defects despite multiple repair attempts ("this Appeal").

A] Salient Background Facts

[2] The Appellant purchased a brand new Mazda 6 2.5L SKYACTIV (A) vehicle bearing registration number VCX 8173 ("the Vehicle") from the 1st Respondent (dealer) for RM193,658.02 inclusive of registration fees and insurance premium. The 2nd Respondent is the distributor of Mazda vehicles in Malaysia.

[3] The Appellant's cause of action against the 1st Respondent allegedly arises from direct contractual liability under the Sale of Goods Act 1967 ("SOGA") for the sale of the Vehicle. The Appellant's cause of action against the 2nd Respondent stemmed from alleged liability under the warranty provisions, based on its attempts to repair the vehicle at its Shah Alam service centre, as well as its technical expertise and relationship with Mazda Corporation Japan in resolving vehicle defects. The purchase and the roles of the parties are not in dispute.

[4] The Vehicle was financed through a hire purchase agreement with Hong Leong Bank Bhd, which subsequently assigned its rights to the Appellant by a Deed of Assignment dated 11 November 2020, enabling the Appellant to sue in its own name. This assignment is not disputed.

[5] The Vehicle was delivered to the Appellant on 29 April 2019 and was purchased as a company car to be used by the company's manager. The Vehicle came with a five-year warranty period.

[6] From shortly after delivery, the Appellant complained of various defects with the Vehicle, including engine stalling during traffic, steering vibration, vibration when in parking position, and jerking at slow speed. The Vehicle was sent to the Respondents' service centre for repairs multiple times over approximately six months from mid-2019 to early 2020.

[7] The Appellant unilaterally rejected the Vehicle in 2020, well within the five-year warranty period, with approximately four years of warranty coverage remaining.

[8] The Appellant's case is that the Respondents were unable to repair the Vehicle satisfactorily, rendering it not of merchantable quality. The Appellant essentially sought compensation equivalent to the value of a new car and damages.

B] Appellant's Arguments

[9] The Appellant argued that the Sessions Court erred in dismissing the claim for failure to call an expert witness. The Appellant contended that the Respondents' own documentary evidence demonstrated the Vehicle's defects, making expert testimony unnecessary.

[10] The Appellant relied heavily on contemporaneous documents from the Respondents, including service records showing the