Written contracts establish obligations and timelines for claims, which must be adhered to by both parties, with specific terms outlining responsibilities.

GROUNDS OF DECISION AFTER FULL TRIAL

The Plaintiff’s Claim

The Plaintiff claim is for the outstanding balance of RM96,226.00 for the supply of equipment and services rendered to the Defendant at the Defendant request namely:

(i)4 units of diesel flow meters totaling RM89,216.00;

(ii)4 units of power supply kits totaling RM4,660.00;

(iii)training of the Defendant personnel for the commissioning of one (1) unit of diesel flow meter) totaling of RM2,350.00.

At the request of the defendant, the plaintiff quoted 3 written quotations for the diesel flow meter and other related goods and which the Defendant thereafter issued Purchase Orders for the said goods and services. The Plaintiff had also issued Delivery Orders in respect of these goods and services as ordered by the Defendant. The Plaintiff delivered the said goods and services as in the Defendant’s Purchase Orders to the Defendant which were accepted by the Defendant. It was also a term of all the Invoices issued by the Plaintiff that interest of 1.5% per month shall be charged on all outstanding sums exceeding 30 days. The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant failed to pay the said outstanding sums for the said goods supplied and the services rendered to the Defendant.

The Defence of the Defendant.

The Defendant alleged as follows:

(1)That the Purchase Orders were for 4 units of diesel flow meters.

(2)That the Plaintiff neglected and/or refused to afford the Defendant reasonable facilities for the performance of the commissioning of the diesel flow meters thus causing the Defendant’s inability to obtain payment from the end-user to pay the Plaintiff within the 30 days.

(3)That it was the course of dealings between the Plaintiff and the Defendant that the Plaintiff supports and provides the commissioning of its product when required by the Defendant.

(4)That the power supply kits for all the units were defective.

(5)That the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is that of supplier and distributor and not merely the Defendant as a mere customer.

(6)That the Plaintiffs claim is time barred by virtue of Item 23 of the Limitation Ordinance Sarawak Cap 49 as the debt did not accrue within 3 years before the action.

The Defendant also counterclaimed against the Plaintiff as follows:

(a)The Defendant was not involved in the commissioning of the diesel flow meters as they required specialized technical skill and when the power supply kits were supplied, they were not functioning and were defective, thus all the diesel flow meters could not be commissioned.

(b)The Defendant alleged that when the Plaintiff was informed of this matter by the Defendant, Plaintiff insisted that the Defendant issue a new Purchase Order, and this led the Defendant to issue the Purchase Order No. 100/0611 but did so under duress.

(c)That when the replacement power supply kit arrived, they were not of the same specifications and it was the Plaintiffs duty to send its personnel for commissioning.

(d)The Defendant alleged that it was the Plaintiffs fault that the wrong power supply kits were supplied to the end user as the Defendant had sent the specifications of the power supply kits to the Plaintiff and Defendant had relied on the Plaintiff to supply the correct power supply kits.

(e)That in the normal course of dealing, the Defendant issued the last purchase order no 57/1111 for commissioning of one diesel flow meter, before commissioning the other in stages.

(f)The Plaintiff refused to commission the remaining 3 units until all the purchase orders were paid. The Defendant was unable to pay because no payment from the end-user due to the non-commissioning of the 3 units of diesel flow meters.

(g)Due to the above, the Defendant alleged that they have suffered loss of goodwill and loss of business.

(h)Thus the Defendant counterclaimed from the Plaintiff the sum of RM 120,000 plus interest and costs.

The Issues and Findings of the Court

Issue (1): Whether it was the Plaintiffs duty to support and provide commissioni