The seller must prove orders and receipt of goods through documentary evidence; mere oral testimony is insufficient without corroboration.

[1] This is an action for payment of goods sold and delivered in respect of aluminium building products.

[2] The Plaintiff is a private limited company involved in the supply of aluminium extrusion sections and products.

[3] The Defendant is an individual engaged in the business of fabrication and supply of aluminium windows and sliding doors. The Defendant traded under a sole proprietorship in the name of Mancon Aluminium Construction Works.

The Trial Process

[4] The trial of this action took 2 days on 9 and 10 July 2014.

[5] The documentary evidence are compiled in bundles B1 and B2 and the following witnesses testified for the respective party:

(i) Cheng Chun Guan (PW1), the chief financial officer of the Plaintiff; and

(ii) Lim Soon Seng (DW1), the Defendant himself.

[6] After trial, the parties submitted their respective written submission in chief followed by their submission in reply. There was oral clarification held with counsel on 11 September 2014.

The Plaintiff's Claim

[7] According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant placed orders for goods comprising of aluminium products from the Plaintiff between 18 January 2007 and 22 December 2007 amounting to RM 359,341.77.

[8] The Plaintiff in this action pursued against the Defendant for the sum of RM 273,377.27 being the balance of the unpaid amount for the goods supplied and delivered to the Defendant between 31 May 2007 and 22 December 2007 comprised as follows:

[9] In addition, the Plaintiff claimed for late payment interest on the unpaid invoices at the rate of 1.5% per month amounting to RM 133,395.62 as at 31 December 2009, otherwise simple interest at 8% per annum at the discretion of the court.

The Defendant's Defence

[10] The Defendant firstly contended that the invoices as claimed by the Plaintiff in this action were different and higher in amount than the invoices issued to the Defendant.

[11] Secondly, the invoices included supply of goods from the product range not known to the Defendant.

[12] Thirdly, the Defendant was informed by a KP Tan who was the manager of the Plaintiff that a Gan Eng Teck from Teras Tradisi was permitted to utilise the Defendant's account with the Plaintiff for purchase of the goods on credit because the Plaintiff has stopped giving credit facilities to new customers. Accordingly those orders not made by the Defendant would be settled by Gan Eng Teck.

[13] It was for the above reasons that the Defendant refused to make payment to the Plaintiff for the goods.

Findings Of The court

[14] First and foremost, the Defendant has at the trial conceded to having ordered and received the goods supplied by the Plaintiff invoiced in I-01465, I-01556, I-01720, I-01793, I-01848, I-01884, I-01965, I-01980, I-02016, I-02036, l-02038 and I-2086 totalling to RM 80,953.05.

[15] The other claims as invoiced remain disputed and I will deal with them seriatim.

[16] Generally, it is plain that the seller in a claim for payment for goods sold and delivered must prove that the order was made and the goods were received by the buyer. The proof is commonly by way of producing in court the purchase order, delivery order and the invoice for the goods ("the key documents"). In Oakwell Engineering International Pte Ltd v. PCM Feam (M) Sdn Bhd, 2014 MarsdenLR 354 , I have said at p 602 that:

"[12] The quality of the evidence required to prove allegations is still subject to the antiquated "best evidence" rule. In the textbook Phipson on Evidence 17^th edi