Back
2023 MarsdenLR 862
MAHKAMAH SESYEN SHAH ALAM
SIDHU BROTHERS TRANSPORT SDN BHD LWN. SIME DARBY AUTO CONNEXION SDN BHD
[Guaman Sivil No: BA-A52NCC-571-12/2020]
A binding contract requires absolute acceptance of terms; mere pre-booking fees do not create enforceable obligations without evidence of payment and acceptance of all contract terms.
Headnote:(A) Contracts Act 1950 - Sections 8 and 74 - Specific Relief Act 1950 - Breach of contract - The court found no binding contract existed between the parties regarding the purchase of vehicles due to the plaintiff's failure to fulfill payment obligations and lack of evidence for loan applications - The pre-booking fee payment did not constitute a binding agreement. (Paras 66-80)
(B) Contract Formation - An acceptance must be absolute and unqualified; a counter-offer destroys the original offer - The plaintiff's failure to provide necessary documents for loan approval and the introduction of new parties for financing were deemed counter-offers, nullifying the original agreement. (Paras 72-74)
(C) Burden of Proof - The plaintiff bore the burden to prove their claims on a balance of probabilities, which they failed to do, resulting in the dismissal of their claims with costs awarded to the defendant. (Paras 80-82)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, a transportation company, ordered two vehicles from the defendant, a vehicle distributor, and paid a deposit. The defendant later sold the vehicles to another party without notifying the plaintiff, claiming the loan applications were rejected.
Findings of Court:
The court found no enforceable contract due to the plaintiff's failure to meet the necessary conditions for purchase, including securing financing.
Issues: The main issues were whether a binding contract existed between the parties and whether the defendant breached any agreement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the plaintiff's actions did not constitute acceptance of the contract terms, and the lack of evidence for loan applications further supported the absence of a binding agreement.
Result: Plaintiff's claims dismissed with costs of RM20,000 awarded to the defendant.
Key Points: - Acceptance must be absolute and unqualified; any counter-offer destroys the original offer (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - A binding contract requires clear acceptance of all terms and evidence of payment obligations fulfilled (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Compensation for breach of contract is limited to losses that arise naturally or were contemplated by the parties at the time of contract formation (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
What is the requirement for acceptance in contract formation under the Contracts Act 1950?
What are the conditions for a binding contract regarding pre-booking fees and deposit payments?
What is the measure of damages for breach of contract under the Specific Relief Act 1950?
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. existence of a binding contract. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. plaintiff's arguments on vehicle orders. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. dispute over signature and contract validity. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. contract enforceability principles. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. specific performance and damages. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. plaintiff's readiness to perform. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 7. evidence of damages and compensation. (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 8. breach of contract and entitlement to damages. (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 9. court's analysis and decision on claims. (Para 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75) |
| 10. final judgment and costs. (Para 80) |
A. Pendahuluan
[1] Ini adalah suatu tuntutan Plaintif yang melibatkan sama ada terdapat kontrak yang mengikat antara pihak Plaintif dan pihak Defendan berkenaan dengan pembeiian dua kenderaan berjenama Ford seperti di bawah:
a) Ford Ranger 2.2 L Single Cab dengan nombor pendaftaran SYF 6683; dan
b) Ford Everest 2.0 Bl-Turbo dengan nombor pendaftaran VDD 832.
[2] Suratcara dan kertas kausa yang berkaitan dan yang telah difailkan adalah seperti di bawah:
i. Ikatan pliding (Lampiran 30);
ii. Isu-isu untuk dibicarakan (Lampiran 45)
iii. Fakta-fakta yang dipersetujui (Lampiran 35);
iv. Ikatan Dokumen Bersama Bahagian B (Lampiran 31);
v. Ikatan Dokumen Bersama Bahagian C yang telah ditukar ke Bahagian B (Lampiran 32);
vi. Ikatan Dokumen Bersama Tambahan Bahagian B (Lampiran 36);
vii. Ikatan Dokumen Bersama Tambahan Bahagian C yang telah ditukar ke Bahagian B (Lampiran 37);
viii. Ikatan Dokumen Bersama Tambahan Defendan Bahagian B (Lampiran 41)
[3] Mahkamah juga melihat pada kesemua keterangan seperti di bawah:
Saksi Plaintif
i. Maljindar S Sidhu Brar A/L Mahindar S (Jimmy) (SP-1)
ii. Gurjit Kaur A/P Mahindar Singh (SP-2)
iii. Jasjeet Singh Sidhu A/L Jaswant Singh (SP-3)
iv. Rashjit Singh A/L Jagjit Singh (SP-4)
Saksi Defendan
i. Kwan Bui San (Sandy) (SD-1)
ii. Steven Kong Fon Seng (SD-2)
[4] Isu-isu untuk dibicarakan adalah seperti yang berikut:
i. sama ada wujudnya satu perjanjian mengikat Plaintif dan Defendan bagi tempahan kenderaan FORD RANGER 2.2L SINGLE CAB dan kenderaan FORD EVEREST 2.0 BI-TURBO; dan
ii. sekiranya Mahkamah mendapati bahawa terdapat satu perjanjian mengikat pihak - pihak, sama ada Plaintif dan / atau Defendan telah melanggar perjanjian tempahan kenderaan FORD RANGER 2.2L SINGLE CAB dan kenderaan FORD EVEREST 2.0 BI-TURBO tersebut; dan
iii. sekiranya Defendan telah melanggar perjanjian tempahan tersebut, remedi dan jumlah ganti rugi untuk dibayar oleh Defendan kepada Plaintif.
B. Hujahan Plaintif
[5] Plaintif merupakan suatu syarikat yang menjalankan perniagaan lori pengangkutan, manakala Defendan merupakan suatu syarikat yang menjalankan perniagaan menjual dan mengedar kenderaan baharu jenama Ford.
[6] Pada atau sekitar 1 Julai 2020, Plaintif memaklumkan yang mereka memerlukan dua jenis kenderaan tambahan bagi kegunaan perniagaan dan kakitangan kakitangan Plaintif. Oleh itu, Plaintif telah membuat tempahan dua unit kenderaan dari Defendan seperti yang berikut:
i. satu unit kenderaan FORD RANGER 2.2L SINGLE CAB yang telah didaftar dengan Jabatan Pengangkutan Jalan sebelum penjualan dan mempunyai No Pendaftaran SYF 6683 (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai 'kenderaan FORD RANGER tersebut'); dan
ii. satu unit kenderaan FORD EVEREST 2.0 BI-TURBO yang telah didaftar dengan Jabatan Pengangkutan Jalan sebelum penjualan dan mempunyai No Pendaftar VDD 832 (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai 'kenderaan FORD EVEREST tersebut').
[7] Selaras dengan tempahan kenderaan FORD RANGER tersebut, Plaintif telah membuat tindakan seperti di bawah:
i. Plaintif telah membuat bayaran deposit sebanyak RM500.00 kepada Defendan pada 1 Julai 2020 dan Defendan telah menerima deposit sebanyak RM500.00 ini;
ii. Kemudiannya juga pada 1 Julai 2020, Plaintif dan Defendan teiah memasuki satu perjanjian Retail Customer Order (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai 'RTO FORD RANGER tersebut') yang mempunyai nombor siri 75
