Back
HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
EUROMOBIL SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
NAN YA HARDWARE SDN BHD – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: BA-12B-65-04/2016]
Based on the provided legal document, the key points regarding the case are as follows:
The case involves an appeal concerning the sale of a vehicle which was alleged to have defects affecting its acceptable quality under the relevant consumer protection law (!) (!) .
The plaintiff purchased a new luxury vehicle with the expectation that it would be free from substantial defects and of a quality befitting a new luxury car, relying on the reputation and standards associated with the brand (!) (!) (!) .
The plaintiff discovered defects shortly after delivery, specifically noise and rattling from the rear passenger seats, which persisted despite multiple repair attempts by the defendant's authorized service centers (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The defendant acknowledged that the vehicle had defects but characterized them as minor, and attempted to repair the vehicle multiple times without fully rectifying the issues (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The plaintiff repeatedly requested identification of the defects, guarantees of safety and functionality, and ultimately exercised the right to reject the vehicle within a reasonable period after the defects remained unresolved (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The plaintiff's rejection was supported by the evidence that the defects were substantial and not remedied despite multiple repair efforts, and the vehicle was not of acceptable quality as required under the relevant law (!) (!) (!) .
The defendant's counter-claims, including storage fees and damages, were challenged on the basis that the plaintiff did not agree to such terms and that the claims lacked supporting documentation (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the assessment of acceptable quality involves an overall evaluation considering the nature of the goods, the price paid, statements, representations, and all relevant circumstances, including the consumer’s knowledge and expectations (!) (!) (!) .
The court found that the vehicle's defects were of a substantial character, and the plaintiff exercised the right of rejection within a reasonable period after discovering the defects (!) (!) (!) .
The decision highlighted that the right to reject must be exercised promptly once the consumer becomes aware of the substantial defects, and delays beyond a reasonable period could undermine that right (!) (!) .
The overall conclusion was that the vehicle was not of acceptable quality, and the plaintiff’s rejection was justified under the relevant consumer protection provisions. The court dismissed the defendant’s appeal and counter-claims, awarding costs to the plaintiff (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you require further analysis or specific legal advice based on these points.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the appeal stems from a lower court decision on the quality of a vehicle sold. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. arguments from both plaintiff and defendant regarding quality and defects. (Para 4 , 19) |
| 3. the court established standards for acceptable quality under the cpa. (Para 5 , 6 , 34 , 41) |
| 4. court's observations on evidence and guarantees under cpa. (Para 21 , 24 , 32) |
| 5. definition of acceptable quality and implications for rejection. (Para 45) |
| 6. the rejection of the vehicle was deemed reasonable given the circumstances. (Para 66) |
[1] This is an appeal by the Appellant (Defendant) on the Sessions Court's decision of 23 March 2016 where the Respondent's (Plaintiff) claim was allowed under s 32 of Consumer Protection Act 1999 ( CPA ) and the Appellant's counterclaim of RM 19,550.00 was dismissed.
[2] For ease of reference, the parties in this judgment, will be known as they were in the Sessions Court.
Facts
[3] The relevant facts to this case can be summarised based on the Plaintiff's Statement of Claim and both counsels' written submissions as follows:
(a) The Plaintiff is a company incorporated in Malaysia and having its business address at Lot 4846, Jalan KPB 11A, Kawasan Perindustrian Kampung Baru Balakong, 43300 Seri Kembangan, Selangor Darul Ehsan.
(b) The Defendant is a company incorporated in Malaysia having its registered address at Level 5, Wisma DRB-Hicom, No. 2 Jalan Usahawan U1/8, Seksyen U1, 40150 Shah Alam, Selangor Darul Ehsan and its business address at Lot 27, Jalan Pelukis U1/46, Seksyen Utara Satu Kawasan Perindustrian Temasya, 40150 Shah Alam, Selangor Darul Ehsan.
(c) The Defendant carries on the business as the importer, distributor and services provider of Audi motor vehicles in Malaysia.
(d) By a Vehicle Sales Order dated 09 July 2012 (page 18 of Appeal Record (C)), the Defendant as the supplier had agreed to sell and the Plaintiff as consumer had agreed to purchase an Audi motor vehicle model A8L 3.0 TFSI QTR at the price of RM668,355.00 by paying to the Defendant an initial booking fee of RM30,000.00 ("Booking Fee"), particulars of which is within the knowledge of the Defendant.
(e) On around 30 August 2012, the Defendant delivered to the Plaintiff an Audi motor vehicle bearing Registration No. WWB 888, Model Code: Audi A8L 3.0 TFSI QTR, Chassis No. WAUZZZ4H6DN002018 and Engine No: CGW049203 ("the Vehicle".
(f) Upon delivery of the Vehicle, the Plaintiff had paid a further sum of RM38,684.00 to the Defendant, thus making a total deposit sum of RM68,684.00 ("Deposit") to the Defendant as shown in the Defendant's Invoice No: 2610031645 with its corresponding Vehicle Delivery Order No: 610032921 (page 20 of Appeal Record (Bahagian C)).
(g) To finance the purchase of the Vehicle, the Plaintiff had on 04 September 2012 obtained a hire purchase facility sum of RM600,000.00 from Affin Bank Berhad ("the Financier") at the term charges at 2.28% per annum (which term charges for 5 years shall amount to RM68,400.00) and the total amount of RM668,400.00 (being the principal sum of RM600,000.00 plus term charges of RM68,400.00, hereinafter referred as "Total Amount Payable to Financier") shall be repaid to the Financier by way of 60 equal monthly installments of RM11,000.00 each commencing from 04 October 2012.
(h) The Plaintiff claimed that less than a month after the Plaintiff had taken delivery of the Vehicle from the Defendant, the Plaintiff discovered defects in the Vehicle with unusual loud and rattling noise emanating from the rear passenger seats even while driving at low speed ("the Defects").
(i) The Plaintiff had complained to the Defendant about the Defects and had sent the Vehicle to the Defendant's authorized service centers for repairs and rectifications on the following occasions and at the following service centers:-
i. from 26 September 2012 to 08 October 2012 (13 days) at Glenmarie;
ii. from 09 October 2012 to 10 October 2012 (3 days) at Chan Sow Lin;
iii. from 21 June 2013 until to-date at Glenmarie.
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
