The appellate court emphasized the importance of proper judicial appreciation of evidence and clarified that a seller's responsibility does not include ensuring fitness for purpose if the buyer specifies the goods.

Introduction

[1] This appeal by the Appellant emanated from the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge ("LSCJ") dated 11 February 2022 in allowing the Respondent's claim against the Appellant with costs after a full trial.

[2] In this judgment, the parties will be referred to as they were in the Sessions Court. In the Court below, the Appellant herein was the Defendant, whilst the Respondent was the Plaintiff.

[3] On 3 January 2023, I allowed the Defendant's appeal with costs. These are the reasons as to why.

Background

[4] The background facts are agreed facts:

4.1 In October 2017, the Plaintiff approached the Defendant to purchase light emitting diodes ("LED") from the Defendant;

4.2 The purchase of the LED lights by the Plaintiff was for the purpose of installing them on the facade of an office tower in Putrajaya (the "Project");

4.3 Enquiries were made about a specific LED light, namely the VarioLED Flex Amor 827 SV IP67 lights ("VarioLED"), which the Defendant sells;

4.4 The Defendant provided a copy of the catalogue of the VarioLED to the Plaintiff ("catalogue");

4.5 It was specified in the catalogue, amongst others, that:

(a) the maximum ambient temperature of the VarioLED is 50°C; and

(b) the VarioLED have high resistance to salt water and is UV resistance.

4.6 On 5 April 2018, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a quotation for the VarioLED;

4.7 The Plaintiff then placed a purchase order based on the quotation;

4.8 The details of the purchase order are as follows:

4.9 The contract between the Plaintiff and Defendant was formed when the Plaintiff placed the first purchase order based on the first quotation provided by the Defendant;

4.10 The express terms of the contract are as follows:

(a) the Defendant shall supply the Plaintiff the VarioLED;

(b) the Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant for the VarioLED supplied; and

(c) the VarioLED supplied will be according to the description and specifications stated in the catalogue.

4.11 The Plaintiff paid the Defendant for the VarioLED for the first purchase order as follows:

4.12 The VarioLED purchased by the Plaintiff pursuant to the first purchase order was delivered to the Plaintiff on 27 August 2018;

4.13 In August 2018, the Plaintiff began installing the VarioLED it purchased from the Defendant on the facade of the building for the Project;

4.14 Sometime in August 2018, the Plaintiff informed the Defendant that some of the VarioLED could not light up;

4.15 Upon the Plaintiff 's request, the Defendant sent a second and third quotation;

4.16 The Plaintiff then issued a second and third purchase order based on the two new quotations;

4.17 The details of the two new quotations and the second purchase order and the third purchase order are as follows:

4.18 The contract for the second purchase order and third purchase order was formed when the Plaintiff placed the second purchase order and third purchase order based on the two new quotations provided by the Defendant;

4.19 The details of the payment made by the Plaintiff to the Defendant for the second purchase order and third purchase order are as follows:

4.20 The VarioLED purchased by the Plaintiff pursuant to the second purchase order and third purchase order were delivered to the Plaintiff on 29 October 2018;

4.21 Installation of the VarioLED on the facade of an office tower for the Project was completed in December 2018;

4.22 In N