Back
2021 MarsdenLR 3011
MAHKAMAH SESYEN KUALA LUMPUR
CHIA GEK SIANG LWN. CANAI WORLDWIDE DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD
[Guaman No: WA-A52NCC-132-01/2021]
Invoicing can constitute a legal agreement, and the lack of objection to invoice terms implies acceptance; thus, defendants can be liable for unauthorized use of contracted services.
Headnote:(A) Court of Appeal Rules 2012 – Rule 14 – Summary judgment application. The plaintiff sought additional charges of RM161,416.80 for unauthorized use of models' images by the defendant outside Malaysia, as stipulated in Invoice No. 2063. The defendant acknowledged terms but raised disputes about the agreement's validity. (Paras 1-74)
(B) Law of contract – Acceptance of terms – The court established that invoice acknowledgement constitutes acceptance of payment terms. The conduct of parties supported the claim of clear agreement about additional charges. (Paras 30-72)
Facts of the case: The plaintiff owns ICON MODEL MANAGEMENT and provided models for a shoot. The defendant used images in several countries without paying additional fees.
Findings of Court: The court found prima facie evidence supporting the claim for additional charges as the defendant failed to refute its liability properly.
Issues: Whether there was an agreement for further fees and whether the defendant’s defenses raised triable issues.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the invoice constituted a binding agreement, dismissing defenses lacking substantiation or reliance on the conduct of parties.
Result: Summary judgment granted in favor of the plaintiff, defendant to pay RM161,416.80 plus costs of RM4,000.00.
PENGHAKIMAN
Latar Belakang
[1] Defendan memfailkan notis rayuan terhadap penghakiman terus di bawah Aturan 14, Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 yang dibenarkan oleh Mahkamah melalui permohonan oleh plaintif pada lampiran 6.
[2] Sebelum itu, plaintif memfailkan tindakan utama [lampiran 1] dan memohon perintah RM161,416-80 iaitu bayaran yang perlu dibuat oleh defendan kepada plaintif.
Fakta Kes Yang Tidak Boleh Dipertikaikan
[3] Plaintif adalah pemilik tunggal perniagaan di bawah nama dan gaya "ICON MODEL MANAGEMENT".
[4] Perniagaan plaintif ialah pembekalan peragawan dan peragawati atau model untuk pengambaran.
[5] Defendan menjalankan perniagaan menjual dan mempromosi pelbagai jenis pakaian. Kaedah pemasaran ialah dengan memasukkan gambar peragawan atau peragawati yang mempergayakan pakaian yang dipilih oleh defendan ke dalam risalah dan laman web "He & Me Inner Wear Shoot".
[6] Defendan [wakilnya ialah Shanice] ingin mendapatkan gambar peragawati melalui projek yang dinamakan "He & Me Inner Wear" untuk mempromosi pakaian.
[7] Susulan itu, defendan ada membuat tempahan peragawati untuk penggambaran daripada plaintif [wakilnya ialah Edmund].
[8] Pada 8 Oktober 2019, plaintif membekalkan dua peragawati yang dikenali sebagai Natalia K & Nikolai K kepada defendan untuk kegunaan dalam Negara sahaja.
[9] Namun antara terma perjanjian ialah sekiranya gambar-gambar digunakan di luar Negara, defendan hendaklah membuat bayaran tambahan.
[10] Pada 08 Oktober 2019, plaintif mengeluarkan invois No. 2063 kepada defendan untuk kegunaan gambar dalam Negara sahaja berjumlah RM19,080-00. Untuk kefahaman, invois menyatakan "job descriptions" ialah seperti yang berikut:
"Project: "He & Me Inner Wear Shoot"
Country Loading: Malaysia only
Media Usage: Brochures and He & Me Website only
Period usage: 3 year only (start from shoot date)
Shoot date: 8th October 2019 (Tuesday)
Shoot time: 9.00 am - 5.00 pm .....
Venue: Canal Worldwide Development Sdn Bhd
Model: Natalia K & Nikolai K
Booked by: Shanice
.....
REMARKS
All prices subjected to
.....
Extra additional fee (base on market & discussion) will be charged for each additional country loading.
....
[11] Defendan ada membuat bayaran kepada plaintif mengenai invois ini.
[12] Plaintif kemudiannya mendapati bahawa defendan memuat naik atau menggunakan gambar-gambar kedua-dua peragawati di luar Negara.
Justeru, plaintif menuntut kepada defendan bayaran tambahan berdasarkan terma dalam invois No. 2063.
[13] Pada 5 Oktober 2020, plaintif menghantar emel kepada defendan:
"From: Edmund Chia
.....
Subject: Extra Countries Loading Charges For He & Me Inner Wear Shoot (Invoice 2063)
Good morning & hope you are doing good.
Based on our conversation on 14th November on phone. We had found that the shoot for He & Me Inner Wear was used in some other countries. According to our agreement there will be charges for extra country loading. Do let us know how many countries your company would like to use?
Hope to get some respond soon.
Best regards
Edmund Chia"
[14] Pada 8 Oktober 2020, jam 10.26 pagi, defendan membalas emel kepada plaintif dan menyenaraikan enam (6) negara luar. Defendan juga bertanya jumlah amaun bayaran tambahan:
"Subject: Extra Countries Loading Charges For He & Me Inner Wear Shoot (Invoice 2063)
Hi Edmund,
Noted on the charges for extra country loading. Please let us know the charges for the following countries:
1. Hong Kong
2. Taiwan
3. China
4. Japan
5. Korea
6. Indonesia"
[15] Pada 8 Oktober 2020, jam 12.09 tengah hari, plaintif bertanya kepada defendan sama ada bayaran adalah untuk tiga (03) tahun bagi setiap negara:
"Hi Shanice,
For loading charges, I will quote for 3 years as well for each countries?
[16] Pada 8 Oktober 2020, jam 12.10 tengah hari, defendan meminta supaya plaintif memasukkan satu lagi negara luar iaitu Macau ke dalam senarai:
"To: Edmund Chia
Subject: Extra Countries Loading Charges For He & Me Inner Wear Shoot (Invoice 2063)
Hi Edmund,
Yes, please include Macau as well"
[17] Pada 8 Oktober 2020, jam 01.38 petang, p
