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

Sorotan Terkini

NAVIGATION AND SHIPPING LAW – COLLISION REGULATIONS – COLLISION AT SEA – A WAKE-UP CALL FOR ADHERING TO NAVIGATION RULES

The collision between the FMG Sydney and MSC Apollo highlights the critical importance of adhering to established navigation rules. Deviations, delayed actions, and reliance on radio communications instead of clear, early maneuvers can lead to disastrous outcomes. This case serves as a stark reminder for mariners: follow the rules, act decisively, and prioritize safety above assumptions.

Read More »
12 Januari ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

SHIPPING AND ADMIRALTY IN REM – A SINKING ASSET – COURT ORDERS SALE OF ARRESTED VESSEL TO PRESERVE CLAIM SECURITY

In a landmark admiralty decision, the High Court ordered the pendente lite sale of the arrested vessel Shi Pu 1, emphasizing the principle of preserving claim security over the defendant’s financial incapacity. The court ruled that the vessel, deemed a “wasting asset,” could not remain under arrest indefinitely without proper maintenance or security. This case reinforces the necessity for shipowners to manage arrested assets proactively to prevent significant financial and legal repercussions.

Read More »
12 Januari ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

EMPLOYMENT LAW – IS DIRECTOR A DIRECTOR OR EMPLOYEE? UNPACKING DUAL ROLES IN EMPLOYMENT LAW

The Court of Appeal clarified the dual roles of directors as both shareholders and employees, affirming that executive directors can qualify as “workmen” under the Industrial Relations Act 1967. The decision emphasizes that removal as a director does not equate to lawful dismissal as an employee unless due process is followed. This case highlights the importance of distinguishing shareholder rights from employment protections, ensuring companies navigate such disputes with clarity and fairness.

Read More »
12 Januari ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

COMMERCIAL CONTRACT – FORCE MAJEURE OR JUST EXCUSES? LESSONS FROM LITASCO V DER MOND OIL [2024] 2 LLOYD’S REP 593

The recent decision in Litasco SA v Der Mond Oil and Gas Africa SA [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 593 highlights the strict thresholds required to invoke defences such as force majeure and trade sanctions in commercial disputes. The English Commercial Court dismissed claims of misrepresentation and found that banking restrictions and sanctions did not excuse payment obligations under the crude oil contract. This judgment reinforces the importance of precise contractual drafting and credible evidence in defending against payment claims, serving as a cautionary tale for businesses navigating international trade and legal obligations.

Read More »
1 Januari ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

SHIPPING – LETTER OF CREDIT – LESSONS FROM UNICREDIT’S FRAUD CLAIM AGAINST GLENCORE

The Singapore Court of Appeal’s decision in Unicredit Bank AG v Glencore Singapore Pte Ltd [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 624 reaffirms the principle of autonomy in letters of credit and highlights the high evidentiary threshold for invoking the fraud exception. Unicredit’s claim of deceit was dismissed as the court found no evidence of false representations by Glencore, emphasizing that banks deal with documents, not underlying transactions. This case serves as a critical reminder for international trade practitioners to prioritize clear documentation and robust due diligence to mitigate risks in financial transactions.

Read More »
1 Januari ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

LAND LAW – PROPERTY SOLD TWICE: OWNERSHIP NOT TRANSFERRED IN FIRST SALE

This legal update examines the Court of Appeal’s decision in Malayan Banking Bhd v Mohd Affandi bin Ahmad & Anor [2024] 1 MLJ 1, which reaffirmed the binding nature of valid Sale and Purchase Agreements (SPAs) and the establishment of constructive trust. The court dismissed claims of deferred indefeasibility by subsequent purchasers and a chargee bank, emphasizing the critical importance of due diligence in property transactions. The decision serves as a cautionary tale for financial institutions and vendors, reinforcing the need for meticulous compliance with legal and equitable obligations.

Read More »
1 Januari ,2025 Tiada Ulasan
ms_MYMY
en_USEN zh_TWZH ms_MYMY
× Hubungi Kami