JUDGMENT

VC George J:

Paragraph 3 of the statement of claim is as follows:

3. The Plaintiff's claim against the defendant is for the sum of RM129,353.90 being the balance price for goods sold and delivered to the defendant at the defendant's request and the sum of RM32,967.45 being the accrued interest as at 30 June 1983.

Particulars

Principal sum RM220,323.86

Less:

Payment in November 1982 RM30,000

Payment in February 1983 RM40,000

Rebate by mutual agreement RM20,969.96

RM 90,969.96

RM129,353.90

Interest accrued thereon as at 30 June 1983 RM 32,967.45

This paragraph was dealt with by the defendants in the statement of defence filed as follows:

3. Paragraph 3 of the statement of claim is denied and the plaintiffs are put to strict proof thereof. The defendants in particular deny that they ordered the timber from the plaintiffs for which the plaintiffs are now claiming or that the plaintiffs can claim interest or at all.

The plaintiffs in February 1984 took out O. 14 proceedings and exhibited inter alia what was purported to be the actual orders placed by the defendants for the goods. It was alleged that on delivery of the goods acknowledgment of receipt thereof was made on the duplicate of the relevant invoice. Samples of these duplicates with the relevant acknowledgment were exhibited.

It was further alleged that monthly statements of the account between the parties were sent by the plaintiffs to the defendants. A sample was exhibited. It was alleged that various payments to account had been made particulars of these were given in the affidavit in support of the O. 14 application. It was conceded that there were certain discrepancies in the supply of the goods and it was pointed out that the defendants had issued a debit note for the value of the discrepancies which debit note the plaintiffs had accepted.

It was further alleged that as at 31 January 1983 the outstanding balance was RM169,353.90 and that on 22 June 1983 the defendants had admitted this in writing. The alleged admission in writing was exhibited.

No doubt because of those exhibits disclosed by the plaintiffs, in opposing the O. 14 application the defendants took a stand somewhat different from the stand taken by the said paragraph 3 of the statement of defence. They now conceded that goods were ordered and delivered and they did not dispute the contention that goods were ordered and delivered and they did not dispute the contention that the deliveries were acknowledged. However, they now complained that the plaintiffs had supplied more goods than ordered, short supplied sawn timber in the lengths required and over supplied timber at greater lengths than ordered and had also supplied timber not ordered at all. What was held out to be particulars in respect of these complaints were set out in the affidavit in reply of Koh Han Boon the administrative manager of the defendants. It dealt with orders given by the defendants in September 1981 and January 1982.

It seems strange that if those detailed particulars were available why they were not brought to the attention of the plaintiffs earlier, why complaints were not made earlier and why even when the plaintiffs' solicitors wrote demanding payment, the particulars were not brought to those solicitors' attention. It seems strange that whereas the defendants had previously issued debit notes in respect of discrepancies, none were issued in respect of the discrepancies now complained of. Most of all it seems strange that even when the statement of defence was settled and filed those complaints with the particulars or at all were not relied on. Further the monthly statements were not queried and worse, as has been seen, the defendants had admitted in writing to the outstanding balance being RM169,353.90 as at 31st January 1983. The defendants contended that they are not bound by their written admission verifying the balance but no plausible reason or explanation had been given to support the contention that their written