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

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN’S CUSTODY – CUSTODY DISPUTES IN MALAYSIA: ESSENTIAL INSIGHTS ON CHILD WELFARE AND PARENTAL ROLES

In a recent custody dispute, the court emphasized the importance of child welfare, reaffirming the maternal custody presumption for young children unless strong evidence suggests otherwise. In high-conflict situations, the court favored sole custody over joint arrangements to minimize stress on the children. This case underscores that Malaysian parents should provide credible evidence for their claims and focus on practical, child-centered solutions.

Read More »
31 10 月 ,2024 尚無留言

BREACH OF CONTRACT – DAMAGES – FORESEEABILITY AND FAIRNESS IN FREIGHT LIABILITY CLAIMS

In JSD Corporation v Tri-Line Express [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 285, the court set a clear precedent on damages for property claims, ruling that only foreseeable and proportionate losses are recoverable. Applying principles akin to Hadley v Baxendale, the court allowed for repair costs if intent to remedy was evident but rejected double recovery, underscoring that damages must reflect actual loss without overcompensation. This decision serves as a guide for Malaysian courts, emphasizing fair and balanced recovery in line with foreseeable damages.

Read More »
31 10 月 ,2024 尚無留言

ADMIRALTY IN REM – SHIPPING — FUEL OR FREIGHT? COURT CLEARS THE AIR ON GLOBAL FALCON BUNKER DISPUTE

In a decisive ruling on the Global Falcon bunker dispute, the court dismissed Meck Petroleum’s admiralty claim for unpaid high-sulphur fuel, finding that the fuel was supplied not for operational purposes but as cargo. With the vessel lacking necessary equipment to use high-sulphur fuel and evidence pointing to its transfer to another vessel, the court determined that Meck’s claim fell outside admiralty jurisdiction, leading to the release of the vessel and potential damages for wrongful arrest.

Read More »
31 10 月 ,2024 尚無留言

COLLISION COURSE – COURT WEIGHS ANCHOR DRAGGING AND LIABILITY AT SEA

In a collision that underscores the high stakes of maritime vigilance, the court ruled that Belpareil bore the brunt of the blame for failing to control its dragging anchor and delaying critical warnings. Yet, Kiran Australia wasn’t off the hook entirely—apportioned 30% fault for its limited evasive action, the case serves as a stark reminder: in maritime law, all vessels share responsibility in averting disaster, even when one party’s errors loom large.

Read More »
31 10 月 ,2024 尚無留言

GENERAL AVERAGE – PIRATE RANSOM DISPUTE: SUPREME COURT RULES CARGO OWNERS LIABLE IN THE POLAR CASE

In the landmark case Herculito Maritime Ltd v Gunvor International BV (The Polar) [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 85, the English Supreme Court upheld the shipowner’s right to recover a USD 7.7 million ransom paid to Somali pirates under general average. The Court ruled that cargo interests, despite their arguments regarding charterparty terms and insurance obligations, were liable to contribute to the ransom payment. This decision reinforces the importance of clear contractual provisions when seeking to limit or exclude liability in maritime contracts particularly matter relating to general average.

Read More »
31 10 月 ,2024 尚無留言
zh_TWZH
en_USEN ms_MYMY zh_TWZH
× 联系我们