A buyer can reject goods under statutory guarantees when defects compromise the quality and fitness for purpose, even after assurances of repair by the seller.

Headnote:(A) Sale of Goods Act, 1957 - Sections 12 and 32 - Consumer Protection Act, 1999 - Sections 45 and 22 - Summary judgment sought for defects in luxury vehicle - Defendants failed to repair vehicle leading to rejection - Appellant entitled to refund as vehicle not of acceptable quality - Court established that denial of defects by Defendant not credible. (Paras 6, 12, 26, 29, 51)

(B) Summary Judgment - Court affirmed that summary judgment appropriate where no triable issues were evident, and facts undisputed warrant a ruling without trial. (Paras 18, 38)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff purchased a luxury vehicle from the first defendant, experiencing multiple failures to start. Rejection followed multiple unsuccessful repairs. The plaintiff's claims were based on statutory guarantees of quality and fitness.

Findings of Court:
The court found the vehicle to be defective and ruled in favor of the plaintiff, acknowledging the defects and the validity of the rejection.

Issues: Main issues included whether the vehicle's defects amounted to a breach of statutory guarantees, and whether a triable issue existed for the defendant's defense.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the repeated defects rendered the vehicle unfit for purpose as per the Sale of Goods Act and upheld the plaintiff's right to reject goods that are not of acceptable quality.

Result: Appeal allowed.

Table of Content
1. parties involved in the case (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. sequence of defects with the vehicle (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
3. overview of summary judgment standards (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
4. defendant's explanation regarding vehicle issues (Para 24 , 25)
5. statutory implied guarantees of acceptable quality (Para 26 , 27)
6. legal basis for rejection of goods (Para 28 , 29)
7. judicial precedents on consumer expectation (Para 30 , 31)
8. consumption rights under various scenarios (Para 32 , 33 , 34)
9. judgment on the plaintiff's entitlement and defects acknowledgment. (Para 37 , 39 , 40)
10. documentation evidence supporting plaintiff's claim (Para 44 , 45 , 46)
11. conclusion on defects and contractual obligations (Para 47 , 48 , 49)
12. court's acceptance of evidence and judicial reasoning (Para 51 , 52 , 53 , 54)
13. final decision and order by the court (Para 55)
14. conclusion and judgment order in favor of the plaintiff. (Para 56)

[1] The plaintiff appellant (Puncak Niaga (M) Sdn Bhd) applied for summary judgment under Order 14 of the Rules of the High 1980 ("RHC") against the first defendant respondent (NZ Wheels Sdn Bhd (no: syarikat 329033-V)) before the Senior Assistant Registrar ("SAR"). The SAR allowed the plaintiff appellant's application for summary judgment. Aggrieved, the first defendant respondent appealed to the Judge in Chambers of the High Court at Kuala Lumpur and succeeded.

[2] The plaintiff appellant now appeals to this Court.

The Parties

[3] The plaintiff appellant is a private limited company incorporated in Malaysia with its registered address at the 10th floor, Wisma Rozali, No: 4, Persiaran Sukan, Seksyen 13, 40100 Shah Alam, Selangor Darul Ehsan.

[4] The plaintiff appellant sued the first defendant respondent as the sole importer and as an authorised dealer of Mercedes-Benz motor vehicles in Malaysia.

[5] The second defendant (Daimler Chrysler Malaysia Sdn Bhd (no: syarikat 596096-H)) carried on the business as the distributor of the Mercedes-Benz motor vehicles in Malaysia.

[6] The third defendant (Daimler Chrysler AG) carried on the business as the manufacturer of Mercedes-Benz motor vehicles in the Republic of Germany and in various parts of the world. It is world renowned.

[7] This judgment concerned the plaintiff appellant and the first defendant respondent.

The Salient Facts

[8] Sometime in March 2006, the plaintiff appellant - familiar with the second and third defendants' public claims of high quality and standards attached to their Mercedes-Benz motor vehicles, purchased a brand new luxury Mercedes-Benz motor vehicle model S350L ("the Mercedes-Benz motor car") from the first defendant respondent for an on the road price of RM769,040.23 excluding insurance. The Mercedes-Benz motor car was subsequently registered as WNH 59.

[9] The plaintiff appellant contended that there are statutory implied conditions and/or guarantees in relation to the purchase of the brand new Mercedes-Benz motor car pursuant to the Sale of Goods Act 1957 and the Consumer Protection Act 1999 .

[10]Inter alia, the particulars of the statutory implied conditions and/or guarantees are set out in the amended statement of claim and that would include the averment that the Mercedes-Benz motor car should be of a quality befitting a new luxury motor vehicle free from defects. Another averment would be that the Mercedes-Benz motor car should be reasonably fit for use as a new luxury motor vehicle for comfortable and uninterrupted travelling.

[11] The plaintiff appellant took delivery of the Mercedes-Benz motor car on 13.4.2006 and since that date, the plaintiff appellant encountered fundamental problems and defects in that the Mercedes-Benz motor car could not start thereby rendering the said motor car to be of unsatisfactory quality and/or unfit for its purpose.

[12] The particulars of the breach of implied conditions and/or guarantees are tabulated as follows:

No:

Descriptions of Problem/De

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011 MarsdenLR 470

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYAPUNCAK NIAGA (M) SDN BHD – AppellantVersusNZ WHEELS SDN BHD – Respondent[Civil Appeal No: W-02(IM)-2348-2009]

A buyer can reject goods under statutory guarantees when defects compromise the quality and fitness for purpose, even after assurances of repair by the seller.

Cases Referred (4)

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
PUNCAK NIAGA (M) SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
NZ WHEELS SDN BHD – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: W-02(IM)-2348-2009]