CLOMART SDN. BHD. v HEXAMINE SDN. BHD.

ba-22ncvc-399-10-2022 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 17 December 2024 • BA-22NCvC-399-10/2022 • 11 min read

1 cases cited (0 SG, 1 foreign)

Outcome

Accordingly, this Court finds no case of misrepresentation and/or breach of contract by the Defendant and t s claim is dismissed with costs of RM25,000.00.

Quoted verbatim from the judgment of High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) (ba-22ncvc-399-10-2022). Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal for the complete decision.

Catchwords

Sale and purchase of goods - Misrepresentation - Breach of contract – Whether the product sold and delivered was contrary to the representations and assurances given – Name of the product in the transaction documents are inconsistent – Product name in Medical Device Authority’s portal does not appear on the packaging of the product – Whether the product sold and delivered was the same product registered and approved with the Medical Device Authority – No order to stop sales or recall the product - Claim for special damages - Refund for recalled unsold product and undelivered product – No evidence to prove - Sections 18 and 19 of the Contracts Act 1950

Practice Areas

Judges (1)

Elaine Yap Chin Gaik Delivered

Counsel (5)

Francis Goh & Co. Firm Kenny Lee & Associates Firm Chuah Chuen Counsel Defendant Francis Goh Yun Hung Counsel Plaintiff Lai Kok Wai Counsel Defendant

Parties (2)

CLOMART Sdn Bhd Plaintiff HEXAMINE Sdn Bhd Defendant

Statutes Cited

Contracts Act 1950 (Cap 136)

Cases Cited (1)

MY (1)

[1989] 3 MLJ 360

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (ba-22ncvc-399-10-2022)