LEMBAGA MINYAK SAWIT MALAYSIA vs PHUNG CHONG FUNG FWEI CHONG

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2010 MarsdenLR 2459

HIGH COURT, JOHOR BAHRU
LEMBAGA MINYAK SAWIT MALAYSIA – Appellant
Versus
PHUNG CHONG FUNG FWEI CHONG – Respondent

Table of Content
1. claim for unpaid balance of goods. (Para 1 , 2 , 4)
2. defendants' claims regarding the agreements. (Para 5 , 6)
3. procedural issues raised in defense. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
4. evidence of delivery and payments made. (Para 14 , 15 , 21)
5. pricing disputes and acceptance by defendant. (Para 31 , 32 , 33)
6. claim of adulterated goods not proven. (Para 35 , 36 , 40)
7. final judgment and conclusion. (Para 42)

JUDGMENT

GROUNDS OF DECISION

Introduction

[1] The proceeding in this case arose from the claim of the plaintiff for the balance of the price of goods sold and delivered to the defendant under 3 sale and purchase agreements. At the conclusion of the trial, I allowed the claim and entered judgment for the plaintiff with costs. I now give my reasons.

The Plaintiff's Claim

[2] The plaintiff is a corporate body established under the Malaysian Palm Oil Board Act 1998 which under the Act has all the powers, rights, privileges, liabilities, obligations of Palm Oil Research Institute of Malaysia (PORIM) before 1.5.2000. Pursuant to the 3 sale and purchase agreements entered into between PORIM and the defendant, PORIM agreed to sell and the defendant agreed to purchase oil palm fru

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2010 MarsdenLR 2459

HIGH COURT, JOHOR BAHRULEMBAGA MINYAK SAWIT MALAYSIA – AppellantVersusPHUNG CHONG FUNG FWEI CHONG – Respondent

HIGH COURT, JOHOR BAHRU
LEMBAGA MINYAK SAWIT MALAYSIA – Appellant
Versus
PHUNG CHONG FUNG FWEI CHONG – Respondent