Back
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
BESTINET SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
GHL EPAYMENTS SDN BHD – Respondent
Understood. Please provide the legal document content (inside
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. contractual relationship and claims overview. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. high court's dismissal of claims. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. implied term argument raised on appeal. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. pleadings and implied terms in contract law. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. raising new legal points on appeal. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 6. misrepresentation and breach of contract. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 7. implied terms and their necessity. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 8. trial judge's findings on evidence and credibility. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45) |
Introduction
[1] The appellant plaintiff in this case, Bestinet Sdn Bhd, engaged the respondent defendant, GHL e-Payments Sdn Bhd, for the latter to develop an e-wallet application for foreign workers. Bestinet operates a centralised system to manage foreign worker applications into Malaysia. It was common ground that Bestinet's operations involve the department of immigration and that consequently its activities are overseen by the ministry of home affairs (Kementerian Dalam Negeri, frequently referred to by its acronym KDN).
[2] No formal contract was en
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
