SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 MarsdenLR 910

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
AL SHARHAN SDN BHD & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
EDIPRO CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: WA-12BNCC-23-10/2019]



Petitioner Advocates:Noor Azlina,Mohd Noor Eswandy,Nor Shaheeda ,Respondent Advocate: Zalina Hashim,Muhammad Azharuddin

A party to a contractual agreement is bound by the terms, regardless of literacy or comprehension, and must prove claims of breach or fraud substantively.

Headnote:(A) Contracts Act 1950 – Section 40 – Agreement validity – The court affirmed the validity of an agreement dated 20 August 2015 for the sale and purchase of a water filtration system, ruling that the defendants had breached it. The court found the plaintiff suffered losses due to the defendants' failure to transfer technology and ensure project approvals. (Paras 6, 15, 16, 25, 69)

(B) Burden of proof – The court emphasized the principle that he who alleges must prove, confirming that the plaintiff did not demonstrate alleged losses from defendants’ breach adequately. (Paras 59, 60, 90)

(C) Interpretation of contracts – The court highlighted that the agreement's terms were binding, regardless of the defendants' claims of misunderstanding, reinforcing that contractual agreements are upheld based on their signed terms. (Paras 14, 16, 24)

Facts of the case: The plaintiff and defendants entered a sales agreement for a water filtration technology, with alleged breaches concerning technology transfer and project approvals. Defendants claimed illiteracy and misrepresentation but ultimately did not substantiate these claims. (Paras 1-5)

Findings of Court: The court concluded the agreement was valid, and the defendants had failed to fulfill their contractual obligations, resulting in losses for the plaintiff. The defendants' claims of fraud were not established due to a lack of evidence. (Paras 6-11, 90)

Issues: The key issues involved the validity of the agreement, the burden of proof regarding the alleged breaches, and the interpretation of contractual obligations. (Paras 13-16, 24, 59)

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that contracts bind all parties regardless of their understanding of its contents, with no evidence provided to substantiate claims of fraud or misrepresentation. The burden of proof rests with the party alleging breach. (Paras 14, 16, 59)

Result: The appeal partially allowed, with the lower court’s judgment set aside on certain claims and costs awarded. (Paras 100)

JUDGMENT

Liza Chan Sow Keng JC:

[1] This appeal by the Appellants emanates from the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge dated 3 October 2019 in allowing the Respondent's claim for a declaration that the agreement dated 20 August 2015 between the Respondent and the 1st Appellant is null and void, a sum of RM787, 661.90 to be paid by the Appellants to the Respondent, interest and costs of RM5,000; the counterclaim of the Appellants was also dismissed with costs of RM3,000.

[2] In this appeal, the Appellants and the Respondent will be referred to as the Defendants and Plaintiff respectively.

The Claim And The Defence And Counterclaim

[3] The Plaintiff claimed that:

(a) it entered into a sales and purchase agreement dated 20 August 2015 (the agreement) with the Defendants for sale and purchase together with the management and use of the water filtration system including the purchase of technology as a whole including a pilot plant at sum of RM650,000.00 (jual beli penapisan air berserta pengurusan dan juga penggunaan system penapisan air termasuk pembelian teknologi kepada Plaintif secara keseluruhannya termasuk logi perintis) for which RM500,000 of the said sum is the costs of technology and pilot plant, including all equipment which is located at the Sewerage Treatment Plant, Indah Water Consortium (IWK), Cyberjaya and RM150,000 being costs of management operations which need to be carried out on the Pilot Plant to be carried out at IWK's Sewerage Treatment Plant;

(b) the salient terms of the agreement are cls 3.3, 4.1 and 4.2 which are produced in extenso:

Clause 3.3:

3.3 Aku Janji Penjual untuk memulangkan pembayaran yang telah dibuat:

Sekiranya terdapat masalah untuk memindahkan milik teknologi daripada Penjual kepada Pembeli, atau sekiranya terdapat apa-apa percanggahan mengenai butiran teknologi seperti tuntutan oleh pihak lain terhadap teknologi atau teknologi terbukti tidak berkesan seperti yang dijamin oleh Penjual atau apa-apa perkara lagi yang boleh menyebabkan Pembeli mengalami kerugian termasuklah tidak mematuhi Perjanjian, Penjual akan memulangkan jumlah pembayaran yang telah dibuat oleh Pembeli tanpa apa-apa faedah.

Clause 4.1.

4.1 Kewajipan dan sekatan ke atas Penjual semasa Jual Beli dan Tempoh Operasi: Bermula dari tarikh pembayaran pendahuluan, Penjual mempunyai kewajipan dan sekatan berikut:

(i) Memindah milik Teknologi dan Loji Perintis kepada Pembeli supaya Pembeli menjadi pemilik, dan pengedar tunggal kepada Teknologi;

(ii) Menjadi pembuat dan pembekal teknologi ini kepada Pembeli sahaja;

(iii) Memasang teknologi dan menjalankan kerja-kerja Operasi untuk tujuan "Pilot Project" bagi mendapatkan Kelulusan;

(iv) Menjalankan kerja-kerja baikpulih teknologi sekiranya teknologi mengalami kerosakan ketika operasi teknologi di Loji Perintis dijalankan. Kos baikpulih perlu dikira dan dimaklumkan kepada Pembeli terlebih dahulu sebelum kerja baikpulih dijalankan. Pembeli hanya akan mengeluarkan kos baikpulih sekiranya kerosakan yang berlaku adalah disebabkan kecuaian dari pihak Pembeli sahaja. Sekiranya kerosakan berlaku disebabkan kegagalan Penjual mengawal selia atau menyediakan teknologi dengan tepat, kos baikpulih ditanggung sepenuhnya oleh Penjual;

(v) Memberi maklumat sepenuhnya kepada Pembeli mengenai Teknologi supaya Pembeli dapat menguruskan operasi Teknologi ini dengan sendiri bagi tujuan pengendalian dan pemasaran;

(vi) Memberi maklumat sepenuhnya mengenai peluang pasaran dan membenarkan pembeli mencari dan memasuki pasaran lain;

(vii) Melatih operator teknologi yang dilantik oleh Pembeli berkenaan teknologi sehingga operator benar-benar faham dan mahir;

(viii) Mencari, mengenal pasti dan memilih waris dalam tempoh operasi ini untuk mewarisi dan diajarkan cara penyediaan, pemasangan dan operasi teknologi bagi tujuan perbekalan sewaktu ketiadaan Penjual;

(ix) Tidak membuat inovasi terhadap teknologi bagi pasaran lain tanpa mendapatkan persetujuan bersama dengan Pembeli dan membenarkan Pembeli untuk membuat penambahbaika


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top