Back
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
MALTOOL INDUSTRIES SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
THRIVE GLORY SDN BHD & ANOR – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts and context of the appeal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. appellant's arguments against court's decision. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. respondents' defenses and rebuttals. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. issues of breach of warranty under soga. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 5. necessity of expert evidence in merchantability claims. (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 6. premature rejection of the vehicle discussed. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 7. definition of merchantable quality clarified. (Para 47 , 48) |
| 8. arguments under the consumer protection act 1999 refuted. (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54) |
| 9. final conclusions and reaffirmation of prior findings. (Para 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61) |
[1] This is an appeal by the Appellant against the decision of the Sessions Court dated 17 August 2022, which, after a full trial, dismissed its claim against the Respondents. The claim concerned a brand new Mazda vehicle which the Appellant alleged was defective and not of merchantable quality. The Appellant sought compensation for the vehicle's value and damages for loss of use, having unilaterally rejected the vehicle on the basis that the Res
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
