Table of Content
1. allegation of illegality due to licensing not applicable; claim deemed valid. (Para 14 , 15 , 18)
2. licensing does not bar partnership validity. (Para 19)
3. amount claimed is justified and supported by evidence. (Para 20 , 21)

"Following the decision of Boustead Trading (1985) Sdn Bhd v. Arab Malaysia Merchant Bank Berhad, [1995] 3 MLJ 331, even if I am wrong in holding the sole proprietor of the firm to be the party to the sub-contract, the Defendant is estopped in law from claiming otherwise under the doctrine of estoppel (see p 344 of the judgment of Gopal Sri Ram JCA [as he then was]). His Lordship writing the judgment of the Federal court in this case adopted the pronouncements of law in Waltons Store [1988] 164 CLR 387 that a party to a contract may be estopped from asserting that there was no valid and binding contract between him and his opponent if his conduct acknowledged the existence of a valid and binding contract. Similarly here, it is too late in the day for the Defendant to claim that no sub-contract came into existence after having received the benefit of the goods and services provided by the owners of the firm and having made payments to it pur

Click Here to Read the rest of this document