JUDGMENT

There is one consolidated action before me which consists of two actions. Both the actions were heard and were tried together.

The first action filed by Victory Avenue Mfg (M) Sdn Bhd (the Plaintiff) is against the Defendant, Matsushita Electronic Devices (M) Sdn. Bhd (MEDEM) in Suit No D3-22-2084-2001 (the MEDEM Suit).

The second action filed by the Plaintiff is against the Defendant, Matsushita Electronic Components (M) Sdn. Bhd. (MECOM) in Suit No. D7-22-207-2002 (the MECOM Suit).

I shall deal with each of them in turn.

The Plaintiff's case in the MEDEM Suit

The Plaintiff was engaged by MEDEM as a contractor for the purchase of scrap metal at its factory in Shah Alam since 1996. By an agreement dated 3.5.2001 (the MEDEM contract), the Plaintiff was engaged by MEDEM for the collection and purchase of scrap metal from MEDEM. I will mention this MEDEM contract in more detail shortly. The Plaintiff's case is based on MEDEM's undated letter informing the Plaintiff that they did not propose to extend the MEDEM contract after the MEDEM contract expired on 31.12.2001. The Plaintiff contends that contrary to its promise and assurance, MEDEM had wrongly terminated the MEDEM contract. On account of this breach, the Plaintiff is claiming a declaration that the notice to terminate the contract is null and void. The Plaintiff is also claiming for specific performance and damages.

MEDEM's case in the MEDEM Suit

The MEDEM contract stipulated that it would take effect from 1.1.2001 and would expire on 31.12.2001. By an undated letter to the Plaintiff and sent by registered post on or about 3.10.2001, MEDEM gave notice to the Plaintiff that the MEDEM contract which was due to end by 31.12.2001, would not be extended. MEDEM contends that they were entitled in law not to renew the contractual relationship with the Plaintiff. MEDEM further contends that in any event, they did give sufficient notice to the Plaintiff of their intention not to renew the contractual relationship between them.

Findings of the court with regard to the MEDEM Suit.

MEDEM manufactures electronic components for electric equipment. During the manufacturing process there are usually defective components or production waste which MEDEM then sells as scrap to scrap contractors. The Plaintiff is one of MEDEM's contractors.

It is not disputed that by the MEDEM contact dated 3 May 2001, the Plaintiff was engaged by MEDEM for the collection and purchase of scrap from MEDEM. For easy reference, the material part of the contact is reproduced as follows:-

"RE: AGREEMENT FOR COLLECTION OF SCRAP

Stated below are rules pertaining to collection of scrap from Matsushita Electronic Devices (M) Sdn Bhd - ECD (herein called the Company) by Victory Avenue Manufacturing (M) Sdn Bhd (herein called the Contractor)

We thank you for your good services you have given us for the past six years and we are looking forward for your continues support.

1) All scrap shall be collected by the contractor on daily basis.

2) There will be no collection of scrap on Saturday/Sunday public holidays and company holidays.

3) Contractor is responsible to collect the scrap from the said premises.

4) Contractor must ensure vehicles and staff comply with MEDEM and government rules and regulations.

5) Contractor must have valid license by government as scrap collector, transporter and storage of scrap.

6) Contractor must be responsible for all act of negligence on your part. MEDEM shall claim damaged due to your negligence.

7) Contractor must comply with MEDEM's Safety & Health Rules and Regulation.

8) Contractor must comply with MEDEM's certified ISO 14001 Rules and Regulation.

9) The company may at its absolute discretion renew of terminated the service of the contractor after (1) year from the date of agreement.

I Moses David Michael IC No. 690304-10-6383 Victory Avenue Mfg (M) Sdn Bhd. No. 10, Jalan Seruling 58, Tai Chong Industrial Park, Kelang Jaya, 41200 Kelang, Selangor Darul Ehsan hereby agree and shall comply to all condi