A The claims

This is an action for the recovery of payment for services rendered. The plaintiff, an assignee of Archiplan Team (hereinafter referred to as the assignor) by virtue of an assignment dated 19 December 1986 and the defendant having been duly notified by a letter on even date, is claiming the following:

(1) the sum of RM140,000 and the sum of S$ 1,396.78 (equivalent to

RM1,803.24 @ RM129.10 [per S$ 100] as at 20 May 1988);

(2) interest thereon at the rate of 8%pa from the date of judgment

until full payment; and

(3) costs.

The defendants who were partners in a firm of architects known as WTS Konsultant (hereinafter referred to as WTS) are refusing to pay on the grounds that:

(a) the assignor had failed and/or omitted to perform the services as

per the agreement dated 6 December 1984 (hereinafter referred to

as the said agreement); and

(b) the said agreement cannot be enforced in the light of s 7(1)(c)

of the Architects Act 1967 as amended (hereinafter referred to as

the said Act) as the assignor and/or the plaintiff was not

registered in Malaysia under the said Act. There is also a

counterclaim of the defendant for the sum of RM90,000 alleging

additional labour and costs incurred as a result of the breach by

the assignor of the said agreement.

B The issues

From the evidence adduced, I am of the view that the dispute should be determined with the following issues in sight, namely:

(i) whether the services were rendered and remained unpaid; and

(ii) whether the said agreement was unenforceable due to s 7(1)(c) of

the said Act.

I shall deal with the counterclaim later.

C Issue (i)

The evidence

It is the case for the plaintiff that he is an architect and town planner by profession in Singapore and has been in private practice for more than 20 years. He was a senior partner in the assignor in 1984 which was later dissolved towards the end of 1986. It was also the evidence of the plaintiff that the first defendant made an offer vide exh P1 to his partner in the assignor and which was duly accepted in the form of exh P2. Subsequently details of the scope of consultancy with terms and mode of payments were written by the plaintiff to the first defendant vide exh P3. The end product was the execution of the said agreement which was admitted as exh P4. From the contents of exh P4, it was shown that the assignor was the design consultant whilst WTS was the principal consultant. According to the plaintiff, the assignor was expected to provide an overall image of the proposed hotel building in Miri, Sarawak and the functional arrangement of the rooms and public areas of the building. In addition, the assignor was also to work out the special and functional arrangement for the operation aspect of the intended hotel, commonly known as the back of the house facilities.

It was also admitted in evidence, vide exh P5, an artists impression of the design concept of the intended hotel building, Holiday Inn, Miri, Sarawak. The plaintiff further said that the design concept, which was done in Singapore, was presented and explained to the developer of the hotel building, Insan Sejati Sdn Bhd. The concept was subsequently accepted by the developer and the defendants. It is also the testimony of the plaintiff that based on the design of a design consultant, a project architect would do the detail plans. In this case, the plaintiff said that it was the responsibility of the defendants to ensure that the building byelaws had been complied with. And by a letter dated 16 July 1986, vide exh P6, the plaintiff said that he confirmed to the defendants that all works up to the design development stage had been done by June 1985. But out of the sum of RM220,000 payable, only RM80,000 h