The contractual relationship between a dealer and consumer is superseded by the hire purchase agreement, limiting the dealer's liability under consumer protection laws.

[1] The judgment is prepared pursuant to s 78(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, as our learned brother, Justice Abu Samah Nordin FCJ has since retired.

[2] The parties will be referred to as they were in the High Court.

[3] This case concerns the appeal by the plaintiff against the decision of the Court of Appeal which, on 9 January 2014, dismissed the plaintiff's appeal against the High Court's decision which had, on 24 April 2013, dismissed the plaintiff's claim against the 1st defendant.

[4] The brief background facts leading to the present appeal are these. The plaintiff was a trader. He wanted to buy a new car (Toyota Camry). He went to the 1st defendant's branch in Taiping. The 1st defendant was an importer and distributor of Toyota cars in Malaysia. The plaintiff made an order for the car and paid a deposit of RM5,000.00. On 19 March 2010, on being informed that the car as ordered had arrived, the plaintiff went to the 1st defendant's office. He paid RM66,706.45, making a total of RM71,706.45 paid by him to the 1st defendant. The purchase price of the car was RM151,706.45. The 1st defendant arranged for credit facilities for the plaintiff from the 2nd defendant. Credit facilities for the balance of the purchase price (RM80,000.00) was provided to the plaintiff by the 2nd defendant. Then, on 22 March 2010, the plaintiff entered into a hire purchase agreement with the 2nd defendant. On the same day, the plaintiff took possession of the car which had been registered with the registration no of AHC 9928. On that day itself the plaintiff encountered problems with the car. He complained to the 1st defendant's representative that the car was wobbling and the steering wheel was pulling to the left side. Thereafter, the plaintiff took the said car for repairs several times. The 1st defendant's attempts at resolving the mechanical problems of the car were not successful, and the problems persisted. On 8 December 2010, the plaintiff left the motorcar at the 1st defendant's Ipoh Service Centre. Indeed, according to the Court of Appeal, the fact that the car was defective when the plaintiff took possession of it was not really in issue.

[5] The plaintiff then sued the 1st defendant first and later amended his statement of claim to include the 2nd defendant. The plaintiff prayed for the following orders against the defendants:

(a) termination of the contract of sale of the car;

(b) the return of the sum of RM151,706.45 being the purchase price of the car;

(c) general damages;

(d) special damages in the sum of RM30,000.00 being the amount of car rentals; and

(e) interests and costs.

[6] After a full trial, the High Court dismissed the plaintiff's claim against the 1st defendant.

[7] The High Court however allowed the plaintiff's claim against the 2nd defendant. In allowing the plaintiff's claim against the 2nd defendant, the High Court held:

"... where a vehicle which was the subject matter of hire purchase agreement has been declared to be unacceptable quality [sic] the plaintiff is entitled to reject and return the goods which the plaintiff in my judgment has properly done in accordance with the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1999 . The plaintiff is therefore entitled to the return of all sums paid to the 2nd defendant and damages of RM30,300."

[8] The Court of Appeal allowed the 2nd defendant's appeal against the aforesaid decision of the High Court apparently on the ground that the plaintiff's statement of claim did not plead and did not disclose any cause of action against the 2nd defendant. There was no further appeal by the plaintiff against that decision of the Court of Appeal.

[9] On the rejection of his claim against