PROVENTUS BINA SDN BHD v FORTIS STAR SDN BHD

Case Significance

Instructive on proof of delivery and acceptance of goods under the Sale of Goods Act 1957, the admissibility of computer-produced documents under section 90A of the Evidence Act 1950, and acceptance of invoiced late-payment interest terms by a course of conduct.

This High Court decision at Johor Bahru is an appeal from a Sessions Court judgment in a claim for the price of goods sold and delivered. The respondent, Fortis Star Sdn Bhd, had sued the appellant, Proventus Bina Sdn Bhd, for the balance of payment due for concrete supplied to it, together with late-payment interest, and the Sessions Court, after trial, entered judgment for RM401,582.00 with interest and costs. The appellant appealed, contending principally that inadmissible documents had been wrongly accepted in evidence and denying both the balance claimed and any agreement to pay late-payment interest at 1.5% per month. The court, per Dr Noradura binti Hamzah JC, restated the appellate principle that it should be slow to interfere with the trial court's decision unless the trial court was plainly wrong. On the admissibility point, the court held that the documents had been properly admitted under section 90A of the Evidence Act 1950, which governs documents produced by computers, and that the plaintiff had proved delivery and acceptance of the goods. It applied section 40 of the Sale of Goods Act 1957, under which a buyer is deemed to have accepted goods once he intimates acceptance, does an act inconsistent with the seller's ownership, or retains them without rejection after a reasonable time, and held, following Boustead Trading (1985) Sdn Bhd v Arab-Malaysian Merchant Bank, that the appellant was estopped from denying its liability to pay for goods delivered and received, a bare denial being insufficient. On late-payment interest, the court found that the plaintiff's invoices, which the Sessions Court accepted, clearly stipulated the 1.5% monthly rate, and that having received and paid on similar invoices in the past without objection, the appellant was deemed to have accepted that contractual term. Finding no manifest error warranting appellate intervention, the court dismissed the appeal with costs of RM6,000. The judgment is instructive on proof of delivery and acceptance of goods, the admissibility of computer-produced documents under section 90A, and acceptance of invoiced interest terms by conduct.