JUDGMENT

There is one consolidated action before me which consists of two actions. Both the actions were heard and were tried together.

The first action filed by Victory Avenue Mfg (M) Sdn Bhd (the Plaintiff) is against the Defendant, Matsushita Electronic Devices (M) Sdn. Bhd (MEDEM) in Suit No D3-22-2084-2001 (the MEDEM Suit).

The second action filed by the Plaintiff is against the Defendant, Matsushita Electronic Components (M) Sdn. Bhd. (MECOM) in Suit No. D7-22-207-2002 (the MECOM Suit).

I shall deal with each of them in turn.

The Plaintiff's case in the MEDEM Suit

The Plaintiff was engaged by MEDEM as a contractor for the purchase of scrap metal at its factory in Shah Alam since 1996. By an agreement dated 3.5.2001 (the MEDEM contract), the Plaintiff was engaged by MEDEM for the collection and purchase of scrap metal from MEDEM. I will mention this MEDEM contract in more detail shortly. The Plaintiff's case is based on MEDEM's undated letter informing the Plaintiff that they did not propose to extend the MEDEM contract after the MEDEM contract expired on 31.12.2001. The Plaintiff contends that contrary to its promise and assurance, MEDEM had wrongly terminated the MEDEM contract. O