This is the Plaintiff's appeal against the decision of the Sessions Court Judge dismissing its application for Summary Judgment under Order 26A of the Subordinate Courts Rules 1980. The Plaintiffs claim against the Defendants in the Court below is for the amount of RM218,662.80 being goods sold and delivered.

It is the Plaintiff's case that the 1st Defendant had since May 2002 ordered goods from the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff had delivered the goods to the 1st Defendant, the acceptance of which had been acknowledged by the 1st Defendant, who had placed their company chops on the Delivery Orders. The Delivery Orders were duly signed by the 1st Defendant's representatives and addressed to the 1st Defendant. The signature and chop on the Delivery Orders bear the words "Received Mentioned Goods in Good Condition and Water Free". Invoices issued by the Plaintiff were addressed to the 1st Defendant.

The 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants were guarantors by virtue of a Letter of Guarantee dated 20 March 1997. The 1st Defendant made payment to the Plaintiff vide two Bank Utama cheques that subsequently could not be cleared because payment was stopped by the 1st Defendant. The Plaintiff then sent a Letter of Demand dated 19 March 2003 vide Registered Post to all the Defendants. Despite the Letter, the Defendants had all neglected to pay the amount claimed.

The 1st issue raised by the Defendants is that the Plaintiff had been told since the 1st Defendant's first letter dated 19 February 2001 to the Plaintiff that instructions to deliver goods are subject to terms stated in the letter. The terms are that only authorised personnel named in the Letter may acknowledge receipt of the goods with the company's chop. The Plaintiff was given specimen signatures and the chop used for acknowledging receipt of the goods, vide the 1st Defendant's letter dated 19 February 2001. The Plaintiff was said to have breached the said terms by allowing unauthorised personnel to receive the goods.

The Defendants claimed that the Plaintiff's dispute over the letter dated 19 February 2001 is sufficient to show that the issue is triable.

The Defendants' 2nd issue is that the 1st Defendant had to stop payment of the two cheques issued to the Plaintiff because of some discrepancies in the Plaintiff's deliveries.

The Defendants' 3rd issue is the alleged wrongful payment for invoice no: 9060383448 dated 28 August 2002, in that it was made by the 1st Defendant without realising that the Delivery Order was signed by an unauthorised personnel.

The Defendants' 4th issue is that the Plaintiffs denial that there ever was a meeting with the Defendant's representative, Yeap Ai Kean ("the 3rd Defendant") could only be determined through a full hearing.

The Defendants' 5th issue is about the Letter of Guarantee. The Defendants claim that it is not valid because the Plaintiff failed to send Statements of Account duly signed by the Managing Director or its authorised representative.

In coming to a decision in cases involving goods sold and delivered such as in this case, I would place due emphasis on the written documents, namely the Statement of Accounts, Invoices, Delivery Orders, Delivery Notes and the Debit Notes. These documents would collectively constitute a contract reduced into writing. This principle had been laid down in the case of Pernas Trading Sdn Bhd v. Persatuan Peladang Bakti Melaka [1979] 2 MLJ 124 where Salleh Abas FJ (as he then was), delivering the judgment of the Federal Court said, "We feel that this course of action is not open to the respondents, as it is clear that under Section 92 of the Evidence Act 1950, oral evidence to contradict, vary, add to or subtract from, the terms of any contract, grant or disposition of property which had been reduced in writing is not admissible. The sales invoice and the delivery note being the contract reduced in writing between the appellants and the respondents section 92 therefore applies." See also YK Fung Securi