Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

CONTRACT – SALE OF GOODS – IMPLIED TERM – SALE BY SAMPLE

Q: I was appointed by an owner of a house to carry out renovation works. We did the renovation. But now the owner sues us claiming we have not installed the materials based on the exact size of materials as per the sample we have earlier shown them. The sample earlier shown was sample of colour of the material. Not the size. The owner now claims for refund of his deposit and to terminate the contract. Can they do that?

A: Depends. For a sale contract to be a sale by sample, the term that it is a sale by sample must be expressly stated in the contract. Mere showing of the sample to the owner does not mean that the sale of the goods was a sale by sample. The details of the sample and that the sale is by sample must be stated in the contract. The quotation must also state the size of the goods to be supplied.

Q: Can the owner add new term into written contract?

A: Pursuant to ss91 and 92 of Evidence Act 1950, when the terms of the contract are reduced in writing, no new terms can be admitted as evidence.

Q: The owner is at first satisfied with the colour, size and quality of the sample we showed them. However, before I could deliver bulk of goods to them, they terminated the contract after hearing news that our goods are of low quality. Is that permissible? 

A: If the owner has not inspected the actual goods supplied under the contract before terminating the contract, it is impossible for a court to find that the goods do not correspond with the quality or the materials supplied were defective. It was factually and legally impossible for the court to determine whether the supplier is in breach of a term implied by s17 Sales of Goods Act 1957 (“SOGA 1957”) into the contract.

Q: How do we ascertain whether a sale is by sample?

A: The court has to look at the evidence and apply the objective test : whether a reasonable person with full background knowledge of the transactions would understand that the seller was making a binding promise that the goods would conform to the sample. Essentially, sale by sample has to be stated in the contract. eg, state in diameter, dimension, thickness, colour, quality etc.

Case in point: Fuyu International Sdn Bhd v Lai Fui Pin & Ors [2020] 9 MLJ 661. KL High Court no.WA-12BC-7-08 of 2018

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

STRATA MANAGEMENT – MANAGEMENT FEE SHOWDOWN – RESIDENTIAL VS. COMMERCIAL – WHO’S PAYING FOR THE EXTRAS?

In a landmark decision in Aikbee Timbers Sdn Bhd & Anor v Yii Sing Chiu & Anor and another appeal [2024] 1 MLJ 94 , the Court of Appeal clarified the rules on maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions in mixed strata developments. Developers and management corporations can impose different rates based on the distinct purposes of residential and commercial parcels. The judgment emphasizes fairness, ensuring residential owners bear the costs of exclusive facilities like pools and gyms, while commercial owners aren’t subsidizing amenities they don’t use. This ruling highlights the importance of transparency in budgeting and equitable cost-sharing in mixed-use properties.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

ILLEGALITY OF UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS’ CLAIM – FINDER’S FEES AND ILLEGALITY: COURT DRAWS THE LINE ON UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS

In a pivotal ruling, the Court of Appeal clarified that finder’s fee agreements are not automatically void under the Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers Act 1981. The Court emphasized that illegality must be specifically pleaded and supported by evidence, and isolated transactions do not trigger the Act’s prohibition. This decision highlights the importance of precise pleadings and a clear understanding of the law’s scope.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

COMPANIES ACT – OPPRESSION – DRAWING THE LINE: FEDERAL COURT DEFINES OPPRESSION VS. CORPORATE HARMS

In a decisive ruling, the Federal Court clarified the boundaries between personal shareholder oppression and corporate harm, overturning the Court of Appeal’s findings. The Court held that claims tied to the wrongful transfer of trademarks belonged to the company, not the individual shareholder, reaffirming that corporate harm must be addressed through a derivative action rather than an oppression claim.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

COMPANIES LAW – WHEN DIRECTORS BETRAY: COURT CONDEMNS BREACH OF TRUST AND CORPORATE MISCONDUCT

In a stark reminder of the consequences of corporate betrayal, the court found that the directors had systematically dismantled their own company to benefit a competing entity they controlled. By breaching their fiduciary duties, conspiring to harm the business, and unjustly enriching themselves, the defendants were held accountable through significant compensatory and exemplary damages, reaffirming the critical importance of trust and integrity in corporate governance.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

JURISDICTION – CHOOSING THE RIGHT COURT: THE SEA JUSTICE CASE HIGHLIGHTS WHERE MARITIME DISPUTES SHOULD BE HEARD

In The Sea Justice cases [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 383 and [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 429, the Singapore courts tackled a key question: which country should handle a maritime dispute when incidents span international waters? After examining the location of the collision, existing limitation funds in China, and witness availability, the courts concluded that China was the more appropriate forum. This ruling highlights that courts will often defer to the jurisdiction with the closest ties to the incident, ensuring efficient and fair handling of cross-border maritime disputes. This approach is also relevant in Malaysia, where similar principles apply.

Read More »
17 November ,2024 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us