Wan Hamzah J:

In his statement of claim the plaintiff alleges that the first and the second defendant companies made certain fraudulent representations to him which led him to enter into a hire-purchase agreement with the second defendant company to purchase One Euclid L-20 Loader (which I shall refer to as the loader). He therefore claims for declaration that he is entitled to rescind the agreement, and also claims for damages against both of the defendant companies. Both of the defendant companies deny these allegations. The first defendant company also denies the plaintiff's allegation that it had sold the loader to him. From the evidence I find that the true relationships among the plaintiff, the first defendant company and the second defendant company are as follows. The employees of the first defendant company offered to sell to the plaintiff the loader which was in its possession, and carried out negotiations with him which led to the making of the hire-purchase agreement (at pp. 6 to 9 of Exh. A) and arranged for the transaction leading to that agreement, wherein he agreed to take the loader and the second defendant company agreed to let it to him on hire-purchase. Therefore the plaintiff became the "hirer" as defined in the Hire-Purchase Act, 1967, the first defendant company became the "dealer" and the second defendant company became the "owner". As regards the responsibility and liability of the first and the second defendant companies relating to representation, warranty or statement I would like to refer to s. 7(1) of the Act which reads -

Every representation, warranty or statement made to the hirer or prospective hirer, whether orally or in writing, by the owner or the dealer or any person acting on behalf of the owner or the dealer in connection with or in the course of negotiations leading to the entering into of a hire purchase agreement shall confer on the hirer -

(a) as against the owner - the same right to rescind the agreement as the hirer would have had if the representation, warranty or statement had been by an agent of the owner; and

(b) as against the person who made the representation, warranty or statement, and any person on whose behalf the person who made the representation warranty or statement was acting in making it - the same right of action in damages as the hirer would have had against them or either of them if the hirer had purchased the goods from the person who made the representation, warranty or statement of the person on whose behalf the person who made the representation, warranty or statement was acting (as the case may be) as a result of the negotiations.

Therefore if any fraudulent representation was made to the plaintiff by any employee of the first defendant company and he was induced to enter into that agreement by the fraudulent representation, he would have as against the second defendant company the right to rescind it under s. 7(1)(a), and as against the first defendant company the right of action in damages under s. 7(1)(b).

In the statement of claim the plaintiff alleged that the first defendant company's sales representative represented to him that the loader was a 1968 model (vide para. 4) whereas it was manufactured in 1964 (vide para. 14). The plaintiff states in evidence -

.. On 2 August 1968 I went to the Ipoh office of Syarikat Harper Gilfillan. There I saw the manager Mr. Ling. I also saw Mr. Chong (salesman of the first defendant company) there ... I was shown Euclid machine by Mr. Ling and Mr. Chong ... Both Mr. Ling and Mr. Chong said that the Euclid machine was a new one ... They stated that the year of manufacture was 1968...

When cross-examined the plaintiff stated: "They (i.e. Mr. Ling and Mr. Chong) said this was 1968 - the newest model. They did not say that it was assembled in 1968". Therefore it appears that the plaintiff was not definitely certain of what Mr. Ling and Mr. Chong said to him, i.e. whether they said the loader was of 1968 m