Soga

2017
- 04 - 25
Sale of Goods Law in Malaysia

Cover
2016 Thomson Reuters Malaysia Sdn Bhd

2017 - 04 - 25

Title Page
Sale of Goods Law

in Malaysia
Abdul Majid bin Nabi Baksh
BA (Hons), MA (Malaya), PhD (Toledo)

LLB (Hons) (London), MCL (IIU), CLP (Malaysia)
Advocate & Solicitor (Malaya)
Senior Lecturer in Law
Monash University Malaysia
Krishnan Arjunan
LLB (Hons), LLM (London), PhD (Dundee)

Barrister, Middle Temple
Advocate & Solicitor (Malaya & Singapore)
Formerly
Adjunct Professor of Business Law
The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology

2017 - 04 - 25

Copyright Page
Published in 2016 by
Thomson Reuters Malaysia Sdn Bhd (464942-H)
(trading as Sweet & Maxwell Asia)
Suite B-5-1 & 2, Level 5, Block B,
Sky Park, One City, Jalan USJ 25/1,
47650 Subang Jaya,
Selangor Darul Ehsa, Malaysia
Abdul Majid bin Nabi Baksh and Krishnan Arjunan
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or
by any means, or stored in any retrieval system of any nature without prior written permissio,
except for permitted fair dealing under the Copyright Act 1987. Application for permission for
other use of copyright material including permission to reproduce extracts in other published
works shall be made to the publisher. Full acknowledgement of the author, publisher and source
must be given.
The author has asserted his moral right under the Copyright Act 1987, to be identified as the
author of this publication.
ISBN 978-967-0915-88-3
ISBN 978-967-0915-90-6 (ProView eBook)
Cover design by Edward Goh
Printed by Print Assist (1901555-V)

7, Jalan Anggerik 5, Bandar Bukit Beruntung, 48300 Rawang, Selangor Darul Ehsan

2017 - 04 - 25 page vi

Preface
Preface
A sale of goods transaction is a particular kind of contract, being governed essentially by its own
legislation the Sale of Goods Act 1957 (the Act). However, the Contracts Act 1950 continues to
apply to contracts of sale of goods in so far as its provisions are not inconsistent with the Act. This
book spans the entire spectrum of topics covered by the Act while the provisions of the Contracts
Act are considered wherever relevant.
While the primary aim of the text is to cater to the needs of the law undergraduate and those
concerned in para-professional studies involving sale of goods law, in view of the depth of
coverage and comprehensiveness, we envisage that the text may also be useful for graduate
students in law as well as young practitioners.
We have adopted the now popular style and treatment of our previous series of texts, Business
Law in Hong Kong, Business Law in Malaysia and Contract Law in Malaysia. Consequently, the
treatment we have opted for is to present an in-depth exposition of the various topics in prose
that, we hope, is clear, concise and makes for easy reading. To help us achieve this goal, we have
provided details of relevant cases to concretise the abstractions in issue. As the Act is similar to
sale of goods legislation in other Common Law countries, case law is drawn from diverse
jurisdictions, in addition to local cases, to explain the provisions of the Act.
Further, we have drawn liberally and set out excerpts from leading judgments in order to assist
the reader to better appreciate the judicial processes involved. Moreover, the detailed reference
to cases, it is hoped, would go some way to obviate the necessity to go looking for a case book.
We are very grateful to the publishers for obtaining all the necessary consents to reproduce
extracts from various Malaysian statutes, to cite and reproduce case authorities from various law
report series, and to quote the passages cited from various different texts, where relevant.
We are indebted to Rachel Jaques of Sweet & Maxwell for all her assistance in this project and the
Editor, Leena Sammugam for seeing the text through to publication.
Abdul Majid bin Nabi Baksh
Kuala Lumpur
Krishnan Arjunan
Brisbane
July 2016
_47a9

2017 - 04 - 25

About the Authors
About the Authors
Abdul Majid bin Nabi Baksh is Senior Lecturer at the Monash University Malaysia. He was at
one time a Professor of English at the University of Malaya and then a legal practitioner before
taking up an appointment at the Chinese University of Hong Kong where he was an Associate
Professor in Law. He also held an appointment as a Visiting Fellow in Commercial and Business
Laws at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Abdul Majid has published extensively in business
law areas with occasional forays into cognate academic disciplines.
Krishnan Arjunan was formerly an Adjunct Professor of Business Law at the School of Business
and Management, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. Prior to that he was an
Associate Professor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong and Senior Lecturer in Law at the
University of Queensland, where he was Sub-Dean at the Department of Commerce. He was a
legal practitioner in Malaysia for over a decade and was a former Director of the Certificate in
Legal Practice (CLP) Course, when he was concurrently Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law,
University of Malaya. Krishnan is the author of several other law texts and has published
extensively in business law and related areas.

2017 - 04 - 25 page x

Table of Contents
Contents
Preface v
About the Authors vii
Table of Cases xv
Table of Statutes xxxix
Chapter 1
General Introduction 1
History of Malaysia 1
The Sale of Goods Act 1957: The Legislative Background 2
Is the SOGA a Codifying Statute or a Code? 13
The construction of a codifying statute 14
A code or a codifying statute? 16
The Law of Contract and SOGA 17
Contracting out of the Sale of Goods Act 1957 18
Chapter 2
The Contract for the Sale of Goods 23
The Definition of Goods 23
Goods as Defined in SOGA 23
Moveable property 23
Actionable claims 24
Stocks and shares 24
Money 24
Land 26
Fixtures or things fixed or attached to or forming part of land 27
Growing crops, grass and things attached to or forming part of the land which are agreed to be severed 28
before sale or under the contract of sale
Works and materials 29
Services 31
Computer software 31
The Contract of the Sale of Goods 32
Elements of a contract of sale of goods 32
Sale 33
Transfer of property in the goods 34
A money consideration called the price 37
Conditional Contracts 41
Condition precedent
41
Condition subsequent 43
Sale and An Agreement to Sell 44
Definitions 44
When an agreement to sell becomes a sale 45
The Classification of Goods 46
Existing or future goods 47
Unascertained or specific/ascertained goods 49
Fungible goods 50
Section 8 of the SOGA 1957 58
Frustration and goods that never existed 64
Frustration and unascertained goods 65
The price 66
Conditions and Warranties 67
Section 11 of the SOGA: Express terms relating to time 67
Condition and warranty 69
Innominate or intermediate terms 75
When a condition is treated as warranty 78
Chapter 3
Terms Implied into a Sale of Goods Contract by the SOGA 81
Section 14: The Sellers Right to Sell the Goods 82
Section 15: Goods Supplied under a Sale by Description will Match their Description 86
Normally sales by description are where goods are purchased sight unseen 88
But there may be sales by description where the buyer has seen the goods 88
The goods supplied must match the description exactly 89
Not everything said about a product amounts to a description 93
Fitness for purpose and special needs 95
Section 16: Implied Conditions as to Quality or Fitness 96
Preliminary observations about s 16 of the Act 96
The expression sale by description in s 16 98
Section 16(1)(a): Fitness for purpose 99
Fitness for a Particular Purpose under s 16(1)(a) of the Act 101
Must the goods be fit for a particular purpose or a range of purposes? 109
Exceptions to implied undertaking as to fitness for purpose 111
Merchantable Quality in s 16(1)(b) of the Act 111
History of the expression merchantable quality in SOGA 112
The meaning of merchantable quality 112
Merchantable quality and fitness for purpose 113
Appropriate appearance and finish 114
Be defect-free 114
Safety 117
Durability 117
Merchantable quality under s 16(1)(b) of the Act 118
Exceptions to implied undertaking as to merchantable quality under the proviso to s 16(1)(b) 120
Section 16(2) of the Act: Terms implied as to quality or fitness for a particular purpose by the usage of trade 121
Condition Implied in a Sale by Sample under s 17 124

What is a sample? 124
General pre-requisite for a sale to be a sale by sample: a term, express or implied in the contract 125
There may be a sale by sample even where the contract is silent on the matter 127
Sale by sample: implied condition The goods supplied shall correspond with the sample in quality 129
Sale by sample: implied condition The buyer shall have a reasonable opportunity of comparing the bulk 131
with the sample
Sale by sample: implied condition The goods supplied shall be free from defect not apparent on reasonable 133
examination
Exceptions to implied undertaking as to merchantable quality under s 17(2)(c) 136
Exemption Clauses 137
Chapter 4
The Transfer of Property between the Seller and Buyer of Goods 139
Introduction 139
Definitions 139
Ownership of goods 139
Property in goods 139
Title to goods 140
Possession of goods 140
Delivery and deliverable goods 140
Bona fide purchaser/buyer 141
Rogue 142
Existing goods 142
Future goods 142
The Transfer of Property as between Buyer and Seller 142
The rules for ascertaining the intention of the parties as to passing of the property in the goods to the buyer 143
Transfer of property of specific goods when the seller has to put them in a deliverable state 148
Specific goods in a deliverable state when the seller has to do anything thereto in order to ascertain price 148
Sale of unascertained goods and appropriation 152
Appropriation of unascertained goods by delivery to carrier 158
Goods sent on approval or on sale or return 169
Conditional Contracts and Reservation of Right of Disposal or Romalpa Clauses 171
Forms of the Romalpa Clause 176
Chapter 5
Transfer of Title 181
Transfer of Title 181
Definitions 182
Bona fide purchaser for value 182
In good faith 183
Rogue 185
The Nemo Dat Rule 185
Non Est Factum 196
Exceptions under the Act 204
Estoppel 204
Estoppel under s 27(1) of the Act 207
Estoppel by representation 207
Fraudulent misrepresentation and intention 216
Estoppel by Negligence 218
Sale by an apparent owner: Proviso to s 27(1) of the Act 224
Seller was a mercantile agent 225
Mercantile agent was in possession of goods or documents of title to them 229
Mercantile agent was in possession of the goods qua mercantile agent 230
Mercantile agent in possession of goods or of documents of title with the consent of the owner 230
Sale in the ordinary course of business of a mercantile agent 237
Purchaser bought the goods in good faith without notice 239
Sale by one of joint owners: s 28 245
Sale under avoidable contract: s 29 of the Act 246
Seller in possession after sale: s 30(1) of the Act 250
Buyer in possession; s 30(2) of the Act 260
Chapter 6
Performance of the Contract 263
Performance of the Contract of Sale 263
Definitions 263
Formation of the Contract of Sale 263
Parties to Contract of Sale 265
Principal and agent 267
Hire-Purchase agreement 268
Concurrent Conditions 269
Readiness and Willingness to Perform 271
The Delivery of Goods 285
Rules as to delivery 286
Delivery to Carrier or Wharfinger 288
Delivery of the agreed quantity of goods 291
Delivery by instalments 296
The Acceptance of Goods 303
Buyers right to examine goods 303
Inconsistent dealing: s 42 312
Right of examining goods and acceptance 319
Rejected goods 321
Sale of Goods and Consumer Contracts 324
Consumer contracts 324
Consumer 324
Sale of Goods and Unfair Contract Terms 328
Contract, standard form contract and unfair term 328
Contract 328
Standard form contract 329
Unfair term 329
Sale of goods 330
Section 24B of the CPA: Pt IIIA 345
Chapter 7
Sellers Remedies for Breach of Contract 351
The Rights of Unpaid Seller Against the Goods 351
The Unpaid Sellers Lien 353
The Right of Stoppage in Transit 357
The Unpaid Sellers Right to Resell the Goods 366
Remedies of the Seller Against the Buyer Personally 368
An action for the Price of Goods 368
Recovery of a Reasonable Price for Goods 376
Damages for Non-acceptance 378
Mitigation of Damages 402
Remoteness of Damage 409
Chapter 8
The Buyers Remedies 415
Remedies of the Buyer 415
Right to Reject 415
Condition to be treated as warranty 415
Exclusion of implied terms and conditions 417
Delivery of wrong quantity 419
Instalment deliveries 420
Right of examining goods 420
Damages for non-delivery 422
Damages for breach of warranty 431
Specific performance 444
Interest, Special Damages and Failure of Consideration 449
Interest 449
Special damages 450
Failure of consideration 456
Remedies in Tort 469
Chapter 9
International Sales 471
Common Law 471
CIF and FOB Contracts 474
CIF Contracts 478
Bills of lading 482
The Hague Rules 490
Insurance 491
The invoice 492
FOB Contracts 493
Merchantable quality 499
Letters of Credit 499
Letters of credit and trust receipts 521
Letters of credit and bills of lading 525
Revoking Irrevocable Letters of Credit and Estoppel 527
Revocation 527
Estoppel 531
Letters of Credit and Unconscionability 533
Letters of Credit and Irretrievable Injustice 552
Burden of Proof and Nature of the Fraud 564
Burden of proof 564
Nature of the fraud 573
Unconscionability and Irretrievable Injustice 578
Index 581

2017 - 04 - 25 page xvi

Table of Cases
Table of Cases
A Juvenile v Public Prosecutor [2002] AMEJ 0185; (2013) 3 BLR 113; [2002] MLJU 471 [6.122]
Abbott & Co v Wolsey [1895] 2 QB 97 [6.089]
Abdul Rahim b Syed Mohd v Ramakrishnan Kandasamy (Wan Ahmad Azlan b Wan
Majid & Anor, Interveners) and Another Action [1996] 3 AMR 2725; [1996] 3 MLJ
385 [6.026]
Ablefoam Sdn Bhd v Khoo Kang Poey & Anor [2014] AMEJ 0708; [2015] 8 MLJ 480 [6.016]
ACCC v Bytecard Pty Limited [2006] ATPR 42-091 [6.110]
AEH Capital Sdn Bhd v AM-EL Holdings Sdn Bhd and Another Appeal [2008] 4 AMR
193; [2008] 4 MLJ 487 [9.070]
Affin-ACF Finance Berhad (Dahulunya dikenali sebagai Asia Commercial Finance (M)
Berhad) v Phang Ngan Heong (Berniaga sebagai Syarikat Kereta Kwong Yue)
[2010] 4 AMR 642; [2010] 7 MLJ 561 [3.007], [8.056]
Ahmad Ismail v Malaya Motor Company & Anor [1973] 2 MLJ 66 [6.010], [6.012]
Ajello v Worsley [18951899] All ER Rep 1222 [2.069]
Ajwa For Food Industries Co (MIGOP) Egypt v Pacific Inter-link Sdn Bhd [2013] 4 AMR
789; [2013] 5 MLJ 625, FC [9.047]
AKAS Jamal v Moolla Dawood Sons & Co [1916] 1 AC 175 [7.046], [7.047]
Akisatan Apena of Iporo & Ors v Akinwande Thomas & Ors [1950] AC 227, PC [6.119], [6.142]
Akitek Tenggara Sdn Bhd v Mid Valley City Sdn Bhd [2007] 5 AMR 453; [2007] 5 MLJ
697, FC [8.059], [8.061]
Albazero, The [1977] AC 774 [9.019]
Aldridge v Johnson (1857) 7 E & B 885 (1857); 119 ER 1476 [2.045], [2.046], [4.030], [4.031], [2.078]
Aldwick Textile Exports Ltd v Leaguer Textiles Ltd [2004] HKCU 1112 [2.120]
Aluminex (M) Sdn Bhd & Anor v United Malayan Banking Corp Bhd & Ors [1992] 1 MLJ
435 [9.050]
Aluminium Industrie Vaassen BV v Romalpa Aluminium Ltd [1976] 2 All ER 552, CA [4.083]
AM Bank (M) Bhd v Ramesh Kullan (unreported) [8.053]
Amalan Tepat Sdn Bhd v Panflex Sdn Bhd [2012] 3 AMR 1; [2012] 2 MLJ 168 [6.130]
Amalgamated Investment & Property Co Ltd (in liq) v Texas Commerce International
Bank Ltd [1982] 1 QB 84 [5.040]
Ambank (M) Berhad (yang Sebelum ini Dikenali Sebagai Arab-Malaysia Bank Berhad) v
Luqman Kamil bin Mohammed Don [2012] 1 AMCR 546; [2012] MLJU 56 [9.038], [9.047]
Amco Enterprise Pty Ltd v Wade [1968] Qd R 445 [2.017]
American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd (1) [1975] 2 WLR 316; [1975] AC 396; [1975] UKHL
1 [9.081]
Anderson v Ryan [1967] IR 34 [2.063]

Andrews v Hopkinson [1957] 1 QB 229 [8.031]
Andrews Brothers (Bournemouth) Ltd v Singer & Co Ltd [1934] 1 KB 17; [1933] All ER
Rep 479 [1.040]
Ang Hiok Seng @ Ang Yeok Seng v Yim Yut Kiu (Personal Representative of the estate
of Chan Weng Sun, deceased) [1997] 1 AMR 917; [1997] 2 MLJ 45 [9.087]
Angara Maritime Limited v Oceanconnect UK Limited, Oceanconnect.Com.Inc [2010]

EWHC 619, QB [5.144]
Ant Jurgens Margarinefabrieken v Louis Dreyfus & Co [1914] 3 KB 40 [7.023]
Aqua-Leisure Industries Inc & Anor v Aqua Splash Ltd (No 3) [2002] 1 HKC 495 [8.041]
Arab Malaysian Finance Bhd v Meridien International Credit Corporation Ltd London
[1993] 2 AMR 3001; [1993] 3 MLJ 193 [6.133]
Arnold Karberg & Co v Blythe, Green Jourdain & Co [1915] 2 KB 379 [4.043]
Aryeh v Lawrence Kostoris & Sons Ltd [1967] 1 Lloyds Rep 63 [8.020]
Asean Security Paper Mills Sdn Bhd v CGU Insurance Berhad [2007] 2 AMR 329; [2007]
2 MLJ 301; [2007] 2 CLJ 1 [9.088]
Asfar & Co v Blundell & Anor [1896] 1 QB 123, CA [2.081], [2.082], [2.086], [2.091]
Ashington Piggeries Ltd & Anor v Christopher Hill Ltd [1972] AC 441 [1.023], [1.032], [3.011], [3.026], [3.038],
[3.053]
Asia Corporation Ltd v ST Ramakrishnan & Lim Kean Seng both trading under the style
of Malayan Corporation [1949] MLJ 206 [9.006]
Asia Pacific Information Services Sdn Bhd v Cycle & Carriage Bintang Bhd & Anor
Mercedes Benz Malaysia Sdn Bhd [2010] 5 AMR 1; [2010] MLJU 233 [6.072], [8.012]
Associated Concrete Products (M) Sdn Bhd v Tackoh Sdn Bhd [1992] 4 CLJ 1967 [6.052]
Associated Japanese Bank (International) Ltd v Credit du Nord SA & Anor [1988] 3 All
ER 902 [2.098], [2.100]
Associated Metal Smelters Ltd v Tham Cheow Toh [1971] 1 MLJ 271, HC [2.131]
Associated Pan Malaysia Cement Sdn Bhd v Syarikat Teknikal & Kejuruteraan Sdn Bhd
[1990] 3 MLJ 287 [7.081]
Attorney General v Rising Sun Trading [1972] HKLR 423 [5.116]
Au Meng Nam & Anor v Ung Yak Chew & Ors [2007] 4 AMR 546; [2007] 5 MLJ 136 [5.007]
Au Yong Kum Min v Tractors Malaysia Bhd [1997] 5 MLJ 168 [1.018]
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Samton Holdings Pty Ltd (2002)
117 FCR 301 [9.065]
AWC Bhd (formerly known as AWC Facility Solutions Bhd) v Point-Euro Malaysia Sdn
Bhd & 4 Ors [2012] 2 AMCR 453 [5.033]
B (A Child), Re [2008] UKHL 35 [9.084]
Badische Anilin und Soda Fabrik v Basle Chemical Works, Bindschedler [1898] AC 200,
HL [4.046], [4.052]
Baldry v Marshall [1925] 1 KB 260 [3.041], [3.079]
Ban Guan Hin Realty Sdn Bhd v Sunny Yap Chiok Sai & Ors [1989] 1 MLJ 131 [6.117]
Bank of China v Brusgaard Kiosterud & Co; & the Bank of East Asia Ltd; & Thong Lee
Trading Co Third Parties [1956] 1 MLJ 124 [9.018]
Bank of New South Wales v Palmer [1970] 2 NSWR 532 [5.123]
Barber v NWS Bank Plc [1996] 1 WLR 641 [8.027]
Barclays Bank plc v OBrien (1994) 26 HLR 75 [5.094]

Barrow Lane & Ballard Ltd v Phillip Phillips & Co Ltd [1928] All ER Rep 74 [2.085], [2.086], [2.091]
Barter Fortune Sdn Bhd v Majurama Development Sdn Bhd [2012] MLJU 448 [9.091]
Battley v Faulkner [18141823] All ER Rep 409 [8.033]
Beale v Taylor [1967] 3 All ER 253, CA [3.013], [3.015]
Behnke v Bede Shipping Co Ltd [1927] 1 KB 649 [8.036], [8.040]
Behrend & Co v Produce Brokers Co [1920] 3 KB 530 [6.050]
Bekalan Sains P & C Sdn Bhd v Bank Bumiputra Malaysia Bhd [2011] 4 AMR 101; [2011]
5 MLJ 1 [7.071], [7.073], [9.049]
Benaim & Co v Debono [1924] AC 514 [9.006]
Berjaya Times Square Sdn Bhd v M Concept Sdn Bhd [2010] 2 AMR 205; [2010] 1 MLJ
597 [8.058], [8.060], [8.061]
Bernstein v Pamson Motors (Golders Green) Ltd [1987] 2 All ER 220 [6.065], [6.067]
Best Re (L) Limited v Ace (formerly known as Jerneh Insurance Bhd [2015] 5 MLJ 513 [9.015]
Biggin & Co Ltd v Permanite Ltd [1951] 2 All ER 191 [8.047]
Binet, The [1966] 2 Lloyds Rep 419 [7.025]
Bishopgate Motor Finance Corporation Ltd v Transport Brakes Ltd [1949] 1 KB 322 [5.012]
Blomley v Ryan (1956) 99 CLR 362 [9.064]
Board Solutions Australia Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corp [2009] VSC 474 [9.069]
Bocotra Construction Pte Ltd & Ors v Attorney General (No 2) [1995] 2 SLR(R) 262;
[1995] 2 SLR 733 [9.060]
Bolivinter Oil SA v Chase Manhattan NA [1984] 1 Lloyds Rep 251 [9.060]
Booth SS Co Ltd v Cargo Fleet Iron Co Ltd [1916] 2 KB 570 [7.018]
Boral Formwork & Scaffolding Pty Ltd v Action Makers Ltd (in admin & rec) [2003]
NSWSC 713 [9.068]
Borden (UK) Ltd v Scottish Timber Products Ltd & Anor [1979] 3 All ER 961 [4.095], [4.097], [4.098]
Bottling Machinery Sdn Bhd v Zara Foodstuff Industries Sdn Bhd [2009] AMEJ 0085;
[2009] MLJU 490 [3.048]
Boustead Petroleum Marketing Sdn Bhd v MKK Industries Sdn Bhd [2010] MLJU 1645 [8.012]
Boustead Trading (1985) Sdn Bhd v Arab-Malaysian Merchant Bank Berhad [1995] 3
AMR 2871; [1995] 4 CLJ 283; [1995] 3 MLJ 331 [5.040], [6.088], [9.055]
Bragg v Villanova (1923) 40 TLR 154 [6.065]
Braithwaite v Foreign Herdwood Co [1905] 2 KB 543 [7.029]
Bramwell Sdn Bhd & Ors v Oriental Bank Bhd (2011) 1 BLR 562 [9.061], [9.081]
Bristol Tramways, etc., Carriage Co v Fiat Motors [1910] 2 KB 831 [3.073]
British Motor Trade Association v Gilbert [1951] 2 All ER 641 [8.019]
BSES Ltd v Fenner India Ltd (2006) 2 SCC 728; (2006) Indlaw SC 35 [9.073]
Bulsing Ltd v Joon Seng & Co [1972] 2 MLJ 43 [7.054]
Bumiputra-Commerce Bank Bhd v Augusto Pompeo Romei & Anor [2014] AMEJ 0118;
[2014] 3 MLJ 672 [6.097]
Bunge Corp v Tradax SA [1981] 2 All ER 513, QBD [9.026], [9.027]
Bunge Corp v Tradax SA [1981] 1 WLR 711, HL [2.110]
Butterworth v Kingsway Motors Ltd [1954] 2 All ER 694; [1954] 1 WLR 1286 [8.049], [8.050]
C Melchers & Co v Kejuruteraan Faun Yee Sdn Bhd [1984] 2 MLJ 337 [2.042]
Cahn & Mayer v Pocketts Bristol Channel Steam Packet Co Ltd [1899] 1 QB 643 [5.088]
Caltex Oil (Malaya) Ltd v Ho Lai Yoke & Anor [1964] MLJ 76 [6.026]
Calton v Bragg (1812) 15 East 223 [8.044]
Campbell Mostyn (Provisions) Ltd v Barnett Trading Co [1954] 1 Lloyds Rep 65 [7.047]
Canada Bank Note Engraving & Printing Company v The Toronto Railway Company
(1895) 39 Empire Digest 368 [2.021]
Car & Universal Finance Co v Caldwell [1965] 1 QB 526; [1964] 1 All ER 290, CA [5.114]
Carlos Federspiel & Co SA v Charles Twigg & Co Ltd [1957] 1 Lloyds Rep 240 [4.042]
Carlos Soto Sau, Axa Securos Generales Sa De Seguros Y Reaseguros v AP Mller-

Maersk As [2015] EWHC 458 (Comm) [5.098], [5.100]
Carlowitz & Co v The Sun Shing Firm (19051906) 1 HKLR 51 [3.075]
Cehave NV v Bremer Handelsgesellschaft mbH (The Hansa Nord) [1976] QB 44; [1975] 3
All ER 739 [2.129], [9.003]
Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130 [5.038], [9.056]
Central Malaysia Development Co Ltd v Chin Pak Chin [1967] 2 MLJ 174 [6.026]
Central Newbury Car Auctions Ltd v Unity Finance Ltd [1957] 1 QB 371 [5.050], [5.051]
Central of Mind Creation Ltd v Sunrich Traders Ltd [2005] HKCU 1180 [3.102]
Central Securities (Holdings) Bhd v Haron bin Mohamed Zaid [1979] 2 MLJ 244 [2.005], [8.014], [8.025], [8.050]
CG Berbatis Holdings Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

(2001) 185 ALR 555; [2001] FCA 757 [9.067]
Chai Lang Fah @ Chai Lian Fah v Cycle & Carriage Bintang Berhad [2011] 2 AMCR 524 [3.066]
Champanhac & Co Ltd v Waller & Co Ltd [1948] 2 All ER 724 [3.083]
Chan and Wong Ltd t/a Luen Wah Machine Welding & Iron Works v Vicform Co Ltd
[2006] HKCU 2007 [6.017]
Chan Cheng Kum & Anor v Wah Tat Bank Ltd & Anor [1971] 1 MLJ 177 [9.015]
Chan Juen v Yu Fook Shung [1987] 3 HKC 539 [2.003]
Chan Soak Bee v Chaw Ngok Pak [2015] 1 AMCR 216 [6.033]
Chan Yin Kwan t/a Qifeng Foods Co v Glory Trading (HK) Ltd [2005] HKCU 448 [8.028], [8.029]
Chappell & Co Ltd & Anor v Nestle Co Ltd & Anor [1960] AC 87, HL [2.045], [2.047]
Charter v Sullivan [1957] 2 QB 117 [7.051]
Cheah Swee Hock v Public Prosecutor [1961] MLJ 183 [5.020]
Chee Ah Yew v Tuan Man, Tuan Lebeh, Hj Lateh b Hj Salleh [1923] 5 FMSLR 36, SC [6.026]
Chen Chien Wen Edwin v Pearson [1991] 2 MLJ 501 (HC, Singapore) [6.118]
Cheng Chuan Development Sdn Bhd v Ng Ah Hock [1982] 2 MLJ 222, FC [7.082]
Chin Wooi Keat v Isberg Corp Sdn Bhd (in receivership) & Anor [2014] 1 AMR 831;
[2014] 10 MLJ 1 [2.032]
China Steel Corporation v Pan Asia Shipyard & Engineering Co (Pte) Ltd [1988] SLR 458;
[1988] 2 MLJ 475 [9.025], [9.031]
Chinbiomedic Engineering Sdn Bhd v Klinik Puwan & Surgery [2010] MLJU 461; [2010]
7 CLJ 506 [2.117], [6.073]
Chop Chin Liong v Ban Hoe Hin [1957] MLJ 13, CA [8.030]
Cimb Bank Berhad v AmBank (M) Berhad & 2 Ors [2015] AMEJ 247 [5.009]
CIMB Bank Bhd v Maybank Trustees Bhd [2014] 2 AMR 229; [2014] MLJU 117, FC [6.107]
City Fur Manufacturing Co, Ltd v Fureenbond (Brokers) London, Ltd [1937] 1 All ER
799 [5.131]
Clegg v Olle Andersson T/A Nordic Marrine [2003] EWCA Civ 320 [6.068]
Clough Mills Ltd v Martin [1984] 1 WLR 1067; [1984] 3 All ER 982 [4.095]
Cochrane v Moore (1890) 25 QBD 57 [2.049]
Code Focus Sdn Bhd v Tan Chee Hoe & Sons Sdn Bhd [2013] 1 AMCR 637, CA [6.026], [6.030], [6.031]
Cohen v Roche [1927] 1 KB 169 [8.036], [8.039]
Cole & Anor v The North Western Bank (1875) LR 10 CP 354 [5.010], [5.016]
Colley v Overseas Exporters (1919) Ltd [1921] All ER Rep 596 [2.031], [7.028]
Combat Enterprise (M) Sdn Bhd v Lucksoon Metal Works Sdn Bhd [2012] 5 MLJ 52, CA [3.042], [3.050]
Commercial & Savings Bank of Somalia v Joo Seng Company [1989] 2 MLJ 200 [5.102]
Commercial Bank of Australia v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447; [1983] HCA 14 [9.064], [9.069], [9.070], [9.072]
Comptoir dAchat v Luis de Ridder (The Julia) [1949] AC 293 [4.044]
Couchman v Hill [1947] KB 554, CA [3.018]
Courtauld v Legh (1869) LR 4 Ex 126 [2.091]
Couturier v Hastie (1856) 5 HL Cas 673 [2.081], [2.083]
Coventry Shepherd & Co v Great Eastern Railway Co (1883) 11 QBD 776 [5.062]
Credit Corp (M) Sdn Bhd v The Malaysian Industrial Corp & Anor [1976] 1 MLJ 83, HC [5.113], [5.143]
Da Mao Enterprises Ltd v Ming Lee Stationery Manufactory Ltd & Anor [2005] HKCU
1499 [8.036], [8.037]
Dai-ichi Karkaria Pvt Ltd v Oil & Natural Gas Commission Bombay 1991 (93) Bom LR
183; 1999 Indlaw CEGAT 2434 [9.095], [9.104]
Damansara Realty Berhad v Bungsar Hill Holdings Sdn Bhd & Anor [2011] MLJU 716;
[2014] 3 CLJ 1 [8.060]
Dato Capt Mohd Najib bin Abdullah v Natarjaya Sdn Bhd & Ors [2015] 6 AMR 802;
[2016] 7 MLJ 532 [4.008], [5.005], [5.008]
Dato Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim v Tun Dr Mahathir bin Mohamad [2010] 1 AMR 578;
[2012] 2 MLJ 41 [6.098]
David Jones v Willis (1934) 52 CLR 110 [3.058], [3.060]
Davis Contractors Ltd v Fareham Urban District Council [1956] AC 696 [2.088]
De Medina v Norman (1842) 9 M & W 820 [6.024]
Dennant v Skinner & Collom [1948] 2 KB 164 [4.023]
Dennant v Skinner & Anor [1948] 2 All ER 29 [7.011]
DF Mount Ltd v Jay & Jay (Provisions) Co Ltd [1959] 3 All ER 307 [7.022]
Dial Kaur Tara Singh v Mann Foong Realty Sdn Bhd [2000] 2 AMR 2412, CA [6.038]
Diestal v Stevenson & Co [1906] 2 KB 345 [7.053]
Director General of Fair Trading v First National Bank plc [2001] 3 WLR 1297 [6.110]
Discount Records Ltd v Barclays Bank Ltd [1975] 1 WLR 315 [9.103]
Dominion Coal Co Ltd v Dominion Iron and Steel Co Ltd & Anor [1909] AC 293, PC [8.023]
Drummond & Sons v EH Van Ingen & Co (1887) 12 App Cas 284 [3.082], [3.099]
Du Jardin v Beadman Brothers Ltd [1952] 2 All ER 160 [5.083]
Dynamics Corporation of America v The Citizens and Southern National Bank (1973)
356 Fed Supp 991 [9.072], [9.104]
E
E & S Ruben Ltd v Faire Brothers & Co Ltd [1949] 1 KB 254; [1949] 1 All ER 215 [3.095], [6.041], [6.082]
E Clemens Horst Company v Biddell Brothers [1912] AC 18 [9.013]
East Asiatic Co Ltd v Othman [1966] 2 MLJ 38 [7.051]
Eastern Distributors v Goldring [1957] 2 All ER 525 [5.052]
Eastern Supply Co v Kerr [1974] 1 MLJ 10, CA [6.065], [6.066]
Edmund Bowes, JB Martin & WL Kent v Charles Shand, Alexander Shand & RA
Robinson (1877) 2 App Cas 455, HL [3.013]
Edward Owen Engineering Ltd v Barclays Bank International Ltd [1977 E. No. 1065]; [9.040], [9.041], [9.044], [9.048], [9.072],
[1978] QB 159 [9.103]
Edwards, Re, Lloyd v Boyes [1910] 1 Ch 541 [7.034]
Eikobina (M) Sdn Bhd v Mensa Mercantile (Far East) Pte Ltd [1994] 1 AMR 529; [1994] 1 [7.062], [7.064], [7.066], [8.015], [8.016],
MLJ 553, SC [8.036], [8.038]
Elian & Rabbath (Trading as Elian & Rabbath) v JD Matsas & Matsas [1966] 2 Lloyds
Rep 495 [9.072], [9.074]
Emaar MGF Construction Private Limited v Delhi Development Authority & Ors (2010)
Indlaw DEL 3229 [9.080], [9.100], [9.104]
Enfield Infrastructure Limited v NTPC Vidyut Vyapar Limited & Ors (2015) Indlaw DEL
635 [9.076], [9.096], [9.104]
Engell v Fitch (18681869) LR 4 QB 659 [7.082]
Essex CC v Essex Incorporated Congregational Church Union [1963] AC 808 [6.100]
Esso Petroleum Ltd v Commissioner of Customs & Excise [1976] 1 WLR 1 [2.050]
Etablissements Dumarest DIndochine v Polden Trading Co & Anor [1960] HKLR 21 [6.084]
Fair Hill Property Sdn Bhd v Ngui Cheng Yew & Anor [2014] 2 AMR 383; [2014] 11 MLJ
141 [6.100]
Fairfax Gerrard Holdings Limited, Fairfax Gerrard International Limited, Assetline

Limited v Capital Bank Plc [2006] EWHC 3439, QB [5.075], [5.076], [5.078], [5.091], [5.096]
Fairise Odyssey Sdn Bhd v Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2014] AMEJ 0977; [2015] 8 MLJ 625 [6.131], [6.146]
Fairview International School Subang Sdn Bhd v Tribunal Tuntutan Pengguna

Malaysia & Anor [2015] 1 AMR 370; [2015] 9 MLJ 581 [6.101], [6.132], [6.146]
Fanlin Investments Ltd v Hang Seng Finance Ltd & Anor (Sun Ling Motors Ltd & Anor,
Third Parties) [1994] 3 HKC 433 [5.063]
Farquharson Brothers & Co v C King & Co [1902] AC 325 [5.053]
Fat Kee Firm & Anor, The v The Po On Marine Insurance Co Ltd & Chan Wai Chi [1907]
HKCU 4 [2.071]
Fawcett v Star Car Sales Ltd [1960] NZLR 406, CA [5.111]
Federal Bulker [1981] 1 Lloyds Rep 103 [9.015]
Federal Hotel Sdn Bhd v National Union of Hotel, Bar & Restaurant Workers [1983] 1
MLJ 175 [6.099]
Fernrite Sdn Bhd v Perbadanan Nasional Bhd [2011] 3 AMR 296; [2012] 1 MLJ 1, FC [5.011], [7.037]
Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd [1942] 2 All ER 122 [2.094], [2.095]
Fiman Plastics Industries Sdn Bhd v Zaitun Industries Sdn Bhd [2003] 4 MLJ 258 [3.048]
FiveOceans Supply Services Ltd, Re [2003] HKCU 451 [4.091], [4.095]
Focal Asia Sdn Bhd & Anor v Raja Noraini bt Raja Datuk Nong Chik & Anor [2011] 2 [9.059], [9.061], [9.070], [9.081], [9.091],
AMR 515; [2009] MLJU 1688 [9.104]
_0xi0
Folkes v King [1923] 1 KB 282 [5.087]
Foo Yee Construction Sdn Bhd v Vijayan a/l Sinnapan [2014] AMEJ 0725; [2014] MLJU
507 [8.054]
Foran & Anor v Wright & Anor (1989) 168 CLR 385 [6.037]
Formis Media Teknologi Sdn Bhd v Ariniz Broadcasting Image (M) Sdn Bhd [1999]
AMEJ 0298; [1999] 5 MLJ 361 [7.013]
Forsythe International (UK) Ltd v Silver Shipping Co Ltd & Ors [1994] 1 WLR 1334 [5.124], [5.125], [5.128], [5.129], [5.144]
Four Point Garage Ltd v Carter [1985] 3 All ER 12 [5.128], [5.143]
Frost v Aylesbury Dairy Co Ltd [1905] 1 KB 608 [3.067]
Fujikura Federal Cables Sdn Bhd v Luen Wah Electric Co (M) Sdn Bhd [2009] AMEJ
0007; [2009] MLJU 447 [6.071]
Fulton Shipping Inc of Panama v Globalia Business Travel SAU (formerly Travelplan
SAU) of Spain [2014] EWHC 1547 (Comm); [2014] 1 CLC 711 [7.075]
Furnishing Fashions Sdn Bhd v Soon Seng Co Sdn Bhd & Ors [2010] 7 AMR 477; [2010]
MLJU 64 [9.090], [9.091]
Galbraith & Grant v Block [1922] 2 KB 155 [6.044]
Gallie v Lee [1969] 2 WLR 901 [5.033]
Gamers Motor Centre (Newcastle) Pty Ltd v Harvest Wholesale Australia Pty Ltd (1987)
163 CLR 236 [5.122], [5.124], [5.127], [5.128]
Ganam d/o Rajamany v Samoo s/o Sinnah [1984] 2 MLJ 290 [6.021]
Ganda Edlible Oils Sdn Bhd v Transgrain BV [1988] 1 MLJ 428 [6.053], [8.010], [9.009]
Gardiner v Gray (1815) 4 Campbell 144; (1815) 171 ER 46 [3.085]
Geest PLC v Lansiquot [2002] 1 WLR 3111 [7.073]
Geh Cheng Hooi & Ors v Equipment Dynamics Sdn Bhd and Other Appeals [1991] 1 MLJ
293 [2.072], [2.073]
Gemencheh Granite Sdn Bhd v Puncabahan Sdn Bhd & Anor [2013] 8 MLJ 594 [6.079]
GHL Pte Ltd v Unitrack Building Construction Pte Ltd (1999) 4 SLR 604 [9.035], [9.063]
Gillespie Brothers & Co v Cheneye Edgar & Co [1896] 2 QB 59 [3.045]
Gilman & Co Ltd v Yokohama Musen Industrial Co (HK) Ltd [1976] HKCU 61; [1976]
HKLR 821 [2.078], [4.059], [4.046], [4.056]
Glamour Green Sdn Bhd v Ambank Berhad & 2 Ors (and Another Appeal) [2007] 2 AMR
521, CA [5.011]
Global Asia Ltd v Lucky Forest Ltd (t/a Delta Printing Company) [2001] 142 HKCU 1 [6.065], [6.070]
Glory Mining Sdn Bhd v ENJ Corporation Sdn Bhd [2013] 2 AMCR 497 [6.086]
Godley v Perry [1960] 1 WLR 9 [3.098], [3.099]
Goh Hock Choy v Zaibi Motor Sdn Bhd [2015] AMEJ 260 [3.005], [8.051]
Goh Hooi Yin v Lim Teong Ghee [1990] 3 MLJ 23; [1990] 2 CLJ 203 [6.021], [6.022], [6.024]
Goh Jong Cheng v MB Melwani Pte Ltd [1991] 1 MLJ 482 [5.028]
Gold Coast Ltd v Caja de Ahorros Del Mediterraneo & Ors [2002] 1 Lloyds Rep 617, CA [9.072]
Goldcorp Exchange Ltd (in receivership), Re [1995] 1 AC 74; [1994] 2 All ER 806; [1994]
3 WLR 199 [2.070], [2.072], [2.076]
Good View Property Sdn Bhd v Standard Chartered Bank (M) Bhd [2014] AMEJ 0669;
[2015] 1 MLJ 99 [9.091]
Goodman Corporation v Mataichi Kabushiki Kaisha [1959] HKLR 421 [2.051]

Goodyear Tyre & Rubber Co (Great Britain) Ltd v Lancashire Batteries Ltd [1958] 1
WLR 857 [5.093]
Gordon v Swan (1810) 12 East 419 [8.044]
Government of the Federation of Malaya v Surinder Singh Kanda [1961] 1 MLJ 121, CA [6.120], [6.123]
Government Of The State Of Sarawak v Lah Anyie & Ors (On behalf of themselves & all
ther occupiers, Holders & claimants of native customary land at Tanjong Tuan and
Sungai Menggatal, Long Teran Kanan, Tinjar, Baram, Miri Division, Sarawak)
[2013] 4 MLJ 184; [2013] MLJU 267 [6.134]
Governor, The and the Company of the Bank of England v Vagliano Brothers [1891] AC
107 [1.026]
Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd [1936] AC 85, PC [3.016], [3.060], [3.072], [3.074]
Gray v Smith [2013] EWHC 4136 (Comm) [5.097]
Greenwood v Bennett [1973] 1 QB 195; [1972] 3 All ER 586 [5.013]
Greenwood v Martins Bank Ltd [1932] 1 KB 371, CA [5.041]
Greenwood (Pauper) v Martins Bank Ltd [1933] AC 51 [5.047], [5.050]
Greer v Downs Supply Company [1927] 2 KB 28, CA [5.092]
Griffiths v Peter Conway Ltd [1939] 1 All ER 685 [3.030]
Grimoldby v Wells (1875) LR 10 CP 391 [6.093]
H
[7.045], [8.015], [8.016], [8.045], [8.046],
Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Ex 341 [8.048], [8.048], [8.048]
Hamdan bin Johan & Ors v FELCRA Bhd & Ors [2010] 8 MLJ 628 [7.059]
Hammond v Bussey (1887) 20 QBD 79 [8.048]
Hamzeh Malas & Sons v British Imex Industries Ltd [1957] 2 QB 127 [9.042], [9.048]
Hardy & Company v Hillerns & Fowler [1923] 2 KB 490 [6.089]
Harlington & Leinster Enterprises v Christopher Hull Fine Art Ltd [1990] 3 WLR 13 [3.029]
Harper Gilfillan (1980) Sdn Bhd v Kean Toh Amang Factory Sdn Bhd (Lee Kwee Hong,
Claimant) [1986] 1 MLJ 249 [2.055], [2.056]
Harrisons & Crossfield (NZ) Ltd v Lian Aik Hang (sued as a firm) [1987] 2 MLJ 286 [3.090], [3.091]
Hasil Bumi Perumahan Sdn Bhd & Ors v United Malayan Banking Corp Bhd [1994] 1
AMR 297; [1994] 1 MLJ 312 [7.079]
Hayes v Mayne [1927] 4 DLR 1070 (Canada) [2.061]
Healy v Howlett & Sons [1917] 1 KB 337 [4.046], [4.047]
Heap v Motorists Advisory Agency, Ltd [1923] 1 KB 577 [5.054], [5.087], [5.100]
Henderson & Co V Williams [1895] 1 QB 521 [5.055]
Heng Long Motor Trading Co v Osman bin Abdullah [1994] 2 MLJ 456 [6.012]
Henry Kendall & Sons (A Firm) v William Lillico & Sons Ltd & Ors [1969] 2 AC 31 [3.058], [3.060], [3.061]
Himadri Chemicals Industries Limited v Coal Tar Refining Company (2007) Indlaw SC
1307 [9.081], [9.101], [9.103]
Hing Yip Products Factory v Ringo Industrial Ltd [2007] HKCU 1496 [2.059], [3.095], [3.097]
HMT Marketing Sdn Bhd v Sodaltech Precision Engineering Sdn Bhd [2015] 1 AMCR
104 [5.041], [5.042]
HMT Marketing Sdn Bhd v Sodaltech Precision Engineering Sdn Bhd [2014] AMEJ 1373 [5.047]
Hoare v Great Western Rly Co (1887) 37 LT 186 [4.046], [4.054]
Hoecheong Products Co Ltd v Cargill Hong Kong Ltd [1995] 1 HKC 625, PC [8.022]
Hollins v Fowler (18741875) LR 7 HL 757 [5.011]
Hongkong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd [1962] 2 QB 26; [1962] 1 All
ER 474 [2.124], [2.125], [2.128]
Hong Kong Hua Guang Industrial Co v Midway International Ltd & Ors [2000] 2 HKC
348 [4.087]
Hong Leong Leasing Sdn Bhd v Tan Kim Cheong [1994] 1 AMR 159; [1994] 1 MLJ 177 [8.052]
Hong Leong Motor Trading Co v Osman b Abdullah [1994] 2 MLJ 456 [3.009]
Hopeful Meat Ltd v Tai Po Frozen Meat Co Ltd [2006] 1257 HKCU 1 [2.072], [2.078], [2.079], [4.030], [4.032],
[8.040]
Horn v Minister of Food [1948] 2 All ER 1036 [2.090]
Howell v Coupland [18741880] All ER Rep 878 [2.092]
HR & S Sainsbury Ltd v Street [1972] 3 All ER 1127 [9.004]
HSBC Bank Malaysia Bhd v Dharani Sugars & Chemical Ltd and Another Appeal [2011]
1 AMR 293; [2011] 1 MLJ 52 [9.051]
Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co (1877) 2 App Cas 439 [5.037], [9.056]
Hung Fa Plastic & Metal Manufactory Ltd v Yip Shing Diesel Engineering Co Ltd [2003]
HKCU 417 [3.064]
Hung Yin Mui v Sun Power Electrical Co & Anor [2003] HKCU 961 [3.067], [3.068]
Hurley v McDonalds Australia Ltd [2000] ATPR 41-741 [9.067]
Husli @ Husly bin Mok (suing as administrator of the estate of Mok bin Tuan,
deceased) v Superintendent of Lands and Surveys & Anor [2014] 6 MLJ 766 [6.128]
Hydraulic Engineering Co v McHaffie (1878) 4 QBD 670 [8.048]
Imada Luenwah World Ltd v Yip Ming Cheong & Anor [2007] HKCU 117 [8.031]
Ingham & Anor v Emes [1955] 2 QB 366, CA [3.031]
Ingram v Little [1961] 1 QB 31 [5.112]
Inter Diam Pte Ltd v Diamond Centre Sdn Bhd [2002] 7 MLJ 189, HC [4.075], [4.078]
Interdeals Automation (M) Sdn Bhd v Hong Hong Documents Sdn Bhd [2003] 2 AMR 55;
[2003] MLJU 15 [4.088], [8.006]
Interdeals Automation (M) Sdn Bhd v Hong Leong Documents Sdn Bhd [2008] MLJU
678, CA [6.003], [6.006], [7.036]
Interdeals Automation (M) Sdn Bnd v Hong Hong Documents Sdn Bhd [2009] 5 AMR
816; [2009] 2 CLJ 321 [4.090]
Ipmuda Berhad v Bakitan Sdn Bhd & Ors [2010] 9 MLJ 429; [2010] MLJU 662 [2.132], [2.133], [3.025], [8.034]
Ireland v Livingston (1872) LR 5 HL 395; [18611873] All ER Rep 585 [9.012], [9.024]
Ishmael Lim bin Abdullah @ Lim Keng Chew v Pesuruhjaya Tanah Persekutuan &
Anor [2014] AMEJ 0734 [5.001]
Itek Corporation v First National Bank of Boston (1983) 566 Fed Supp 1210 [9.104]
Jackson v Watson & Sons [1909] 2 KB 193 [8.031]
Jag Shakti Chabbra Corporation Pte Ltd v MV Jag Shakti, Owners & Ors, Interested
[1986] 1 MLJ 197 [9.018]
James Capel (Far East) Ltd v YK Fung Securities Sdn Bhd (Tan Koon Swan, Third Party)
[1996] 2 MLJ 97 [2.005]
James Cundy & T Bevington v Thomas Lindsay & Ors (1878) 3 App Cas 459 [5.111]
Jasin Construction Development (M) Sdn Bhd v Hanson Quarry Products Sdn Bhd
[2012] MLJU 786 [8.033]
Jia Min Building Construction Pte Ltd v Ann Lee Pte Ltd [2004] 3 SLR(R) 288 [7.074]
JL Lyons & Co v May & Baker (1923) 129 LT 413 [7.003]
Joan Fung @ Joan Fung Nyuk Lee v Allianz General Insurance Company (M) Bhd [2011]
6 MLJ 805, HC (Sandakan) [9.082]
Joblin v Watkins & Roseveare (Motors) Ltd [1949] 1 All ER 47 [5.138]
Johann Plischke & Sohne GmbH v Allison Brothers Ltd [1936] 2 All ER 1009 [7.016]
Jones v Just (1868) LR 3 QB 197 [3.057]
Jones & Anor v Bowden & Anor (1813) 4 Taunt 847; (1813) 128 ER 565 [3.076], [3.077], [3.078]
Jong Nyong Shong & Ors v UOL Credit Sdn Bhd [2006] 3 AMR 331; [2006] MLJU 88 [7.074]
Joo Leong Timber v Dr Jaswant Singh Jagat Singh [2003] 5 CLJ 287 [7.073]
JP Builders v A Ramadas Rao [2011] 1 SCC 429 [6.024], [6.030], [6.036]
Jumbohan OMH Sdn Bhd v Kian Joo Can Factory Berhad [2010] MLJU 946 [3.048]
Juta Damai Sdn Bhd v Permodalan Negeri Selangor Berhad [2014] 2 AMR 487, CA [6.038]
JW Properties Sdn Bhd v Perbadanan Kemajuan Pertanian Selangor & Anor and
Another Appeal [2016] 1 AMR 317; [2016] 1 MLJ 341 [5.104]
K Umar Kandha Rajah v El Magness [1985] 1 MLJ 116 [6.015]
Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd (2013) 298 ALR 35 [9.064], [9.070]
Kanwar Bhan-Sukha v Ganpat (1926) 94 IC 304 [6.026]
Karintina Trading Pte Ltd v Cornelders (Sabah) Sdn Bhd [1995] MLJU 356 [7.078]
KCC Container Moving Service Sdn Bhd & Anor v Tahan Tractor (M) Sdn Bhd [1996]
MLJU 458 [6.046]
Kebatasan Timber Extraction Co v Chong Fah Shing [1969] 2 MLJ 6 [7.070], [7.073]
Kee Shing Industrial Products Ltd v Wah Lai Metal Artificial Jewellery Factory (a firm)
[2005] 2 HKC 325, CA [6.059]
Kesatuan Kebangsaan Wartawan Malaysia & Anor v Syarikat Pemandangan Sinar Sdn
Bhd & Anor [2001] 4 AMR 3813; [2001] 3 MLJ 705 [6.134], [6.142]
Khong Seng v Ng Teong Kiat Biscuit Factory Ltd [1963] MLJ 388 [3.042], [3.043]
Kian Gwan Co (China) Ltd v China Union Trading Company [1949] HKCU 21 [9.017]
Kijal Resort Sdn Bhd v Pentadbir Tanah Kemaman & Anor [2015] 2 AMR 89, FC [6.125], [6.127], [6.142]
Kimanis Power Sdn Bhd v Sabah Electricity Sdn Bhd & Anor [2014] AMEJ 1515; [2015]
10 MLJ 676 [9.064]
Kings Norton Metal Co Ltd v Edridge, Merret & Co Ltd (1897) 14 TLR 98 [5.112]
Kirkham v Attenborough [1897] 1 QB 201 [4.075], [4.076]
Koh Shey Guan v Lee Kok Chan [1971] 1 MLJ 79 [6.035]
Kon Yin Tong v Leow Boon Cher [2011] SGHC 228 [9.086]
Kota Pahlawan; Kota Pahlawan, Owners of Ship v Kota Pahlawan, Owners of

Cargo [1982] 2 MLJ 8 [9.019]
Kris Heavy Engineering & Construction Sdn Bhd v Mah Sing Properties Sdn Bhd [2011]
5 AMR 128; [2011] MLJU 1448 [8.061]
Kwei Tek Chao v British Traders & Shippers Ltd [1954] 2 WLR 365 [8.013], [8.014], [8.050], [9.014]
L
L Schuler AG v Wickman Machine Tool Sales Ltd [1974] AC 235, HL [8.026], [8.028]
LEstrange v Graucob Ltd [1934] 2 KB 394 [5.027]
Lacis v Cashmarts [1969] 2 QB 400 [4.017], [4.018]
Lafarge Concrete (M) Sdn Bhd (formerly known as Supermix Concrete (M) Sdn Bhd) v
Hasrat Usaha Sdn Bhd & Anor [2011] 6 MLJ 701 [6.007]
Lake v Simmons [1927] AC 487 [5.087]
Landauer & Co v Craven & Speeding Brothers [1912] 2 KB 94 [9.021], [9.022]
Langkawi R & D Academy Sdn Bhd v Ketua Setiausaha, Kementerian Pertahanan

Malaysia & Ors [2012] 4 AMR 706; [2012] MLJU 564 [9.033]
Lau Tek Sen @ Lau Beng Chong & 3 Ors v SK Song [1995] 2 AMR 1225; [1995] MLJU 302 [2.011]
Lazenby Garages Ltd v Wright [1976] 1 WLR 459 [7.049]
Leaf v International Galleries [1950] 1 All ER 693 [6.076], [6.079]
Lee v Griffin [18611873] All ER Rep 191 [2.018], [2.019], [2.021]
Lee Chiang Boh @ Lee Ching Moo v Lee Nyoke Hin & Anor (Sim Tee Chiang @ Je Chang,
Pihak Ketiga) [2012] AMEJ 0180; [2012] MLJU 1310 [8.058]
Lee Heng & Co v C Melchers & Co [1963] 1 MLJ 47 [7.057], [7.064], [7.066], [7.082]
Lee Sau Kong v Leow Cheng Chiang [1961] MLJ 17, CA [8.036]
Lee Teng Siong v Lee Kheng Lian & Ors [2006] 5 AMR 217; [2006] 5 MLJ 609 [6.100]
Leelavathi a/p K Govindasamy v Sivan a/l Subramaniam & Anor [2015] AMEJ 237;
[2015] MLJU 13 [6.039]
Legrand Jewellery (Mfg) Co Ltd v Wo Fung Pawnshop (a firm) & Ors [1988] HKCU 401 [5.088]
Lembaga Kemajuan Tanah Persekutuan (FELDA) & Anor v Awang Soh bin Mamat &
Ors [2010] 1 AMR 285; [2009] 4 MLJ 610 [9.089], [9.091]
Leong Hup Contract Farming Sdn Bhd v Lim Kian Pai & 5 Ors [2014] AMEJ 153 [5.111]
Leung Chor Kong v Liberty International Insurance Ltd [2002] 1 HKLRD 383 [2.084]
Lewis v Averay [1972] 1 QB 198 [5.112]
LG Thorne & Co v Thomas Borthwick & Sons (Asia) Ltd (1956) 56 SR (NSW) 81 [3.084]
Li Seng Yee v SS Hai Jye [1961] HKCU 62 [4.015]
Lian Lee Motor Sdn Bhd v Azizuddin bin Khairudin [2001] 1 AMR 630; [2001] 5 MLJ
334; [2001] 1 CLJ 768 [2.033], [3.004], [3.006]
Lifestyle Enterprise (USA) Inc & Anor v LY Furniture Sdn Bhd & Anor and Another Suit
[2013] 4 AMR 159; [2013] 10 MLJ 181 [2.108]
Lim Chui Lai v Zeno Ltd [1964] MLJ 314, FC [5.014], [5.067], [5.107]
Lim Kim Swee v Tan Meng San [1960] MLJ 262, CA [6.026]
Lin Wen-chih & Anor v Mycom Bhd [2014] 1 AMCR 345; [2014] 3 MLJ 691, CA [5.031], [8.055]
Lloyds & Scottish Finance Ltd v Modern Cars & Caravans (Kingston) Ltd [1966] 1 QB
764 [8.047]
Lloyds & Scottish Finance Ltd v Williamson & Anor [1965] 1 All ER 641 [5.064]
Lloyds Bank Plc v Waterhouse [1991] FamLaw 21 [5.030]
London Wine Co (Shippers) Ltd, Re [1986] PCC 121 [2.072], [2.075]
Lorne Steward plc v Hermes Kreditversicherungs AG & Anor, (unreported) [9.072]
Lowe v Lombank Ltd [1960] 1 All ER 611 [5.049], [5.050]
Lowther v Harris [1927] 1 KB 393 [5.073], [5.087]

Lynn v Bamber [1930] 2 KB 72 [8.033]
M & J Frozen Foods Sdn Bhd & Anor v Siland Sdn Bhd & Anor [1994] 1 MLJ 294 [5.001]
MAA Holdings Sdn Bhd & Anor v Ng Siew Wah & Ors [1986] 1 MLJ 170 [5.040]
Macmillan Inc v Bishopsgate Investment Trust Plc & Ors (No.3) [1995] 1 WLR 978 [5.095]
Malayan Banking Bhd v Ching Suit Fee [2012] 2 AMR 420; [2012] MLJU 10 [9.045]
Malayan Banking Bhd v Punjab National Bank [2015] AMEJ 925; [2015] MLJU 398 [9.052]
Malayan Banking Bhd v Marilyn Ho Siok Lin [2006] 7 MLJ 249 [5.032]
Malayan Miners Co (M) Ltd v Lian Hock & Co [1966] 2 MLJ 273 [4.017], [4.019]
Malaysian Rubber Development Corp Bhd v Glove Seal Sdn Bhd [1994] 3 AMR 2407;
[1994] 3 MLJ 569, SC [7.063], [7.064], [7.066], [7.078]
Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1166 v Chubb Singapore Pte Ltd [1999] 3
SLR 540 [2.022]
Manchester Liners Ltd v Rea Ltd [1922] 2 AC 74 [3.045]
Maple Flock Co v Universal Furniture Products [1934] 1 KB 148 [6.056]
Maplelee Property Sdn Bhd v Tan Lei Fon [2005] 2 AMR 803; [2005] 3 MLJ 305 [7.076]
Marianne Trading Ltd v Cheung Yan Tin & Ors t/a Lain Fun Trading Co [1995] 1 HKC
488 [9.026], [9.028]
Marquis of Anglesey, Re, Willmot v Gardner [1901] 2 Ch 548 [8.044]
Marshall v Green (1875) 1 CPD 35 [2.003], [2.016]
Marshall & Co v Nicoll & Son 1919 SC (HL) 129; 1920 1 SLT 79 [8.017]
Martindale v Smith (1841) 1 QB 389; 113 ER 1181 [7.005]
Mash & Murrell Ltd v Joseph I Emanuel Ltd [1961] 1 All ER 485 [6.062]
Mason v Birmingham [1949] 2 KB 545 [8.031]
Matang Plastik & Metal Work Industries Sdn Bhd & Ors v Daimler Chrysler (M) Sdn
Bhd & Ors [2014] 4 AMR 504; [2014] 6 MLJ 244, CA [6.013]
Mauri Garments Trading & Marketing Limited v The Mauritius Commercial Bank
Limited [2015] UKPC 14 [9.044]
May Tik Decoration Co Ltd v Ronacrete (Far East) Ltd [2009] HKCU 619 [3.090], [3.093]
MBf Factors Sdn Bhd v Tay Hing Ju (t/a New General Trading [2002] 5 MLJ 536 [5.021], [5.074]
MBf Finance Berhad v Wee Kee Hock [1995] 2 AMR 1997 [5.012], [5.014], [5.019], [5.020], [5.023],
[5.067], [5.121]
McConnell Ltd v Sembcorp Ltd [2002] BLR 450 [9.072]
McRae v Commonwealth Disposal Commission (1951) 84 CLR 377 [2.098], [2.099]
Medicon Plastic Industries Sdn Bhd v Syarikat Cosa Sdn Bhd [1995] 2 AMR 1577; [1995]
2 MLJ 257; [1995] 3 CLJ 17, CA [3.041], [3.042], [3.049], [3.054]
Mercantile Bank of India Ltd v Central Bank of India Ltd [1938] AC 287, PC [5.057]
Mercantile Credit Co Ltd v Hamblin [1965] 2 QB 242 [5.030], [5.063]
Merchant Banking Company of London v Phoenix Bessemer Steel Company (1877) 5

ChD 205 [7.010]
Mersey Steel & Iron Co (Limited) The v Naylor, Benzon & Co (1884) 9 App Cas 434 [6.093], [6.094]
MG Sheth & Ors v Lam Thye Co Ltd [1954] 1 MLJ 230 [6.074], [6.083]
Michael Gerson (Leasing) Ltd v Wilkinson & Anor [2001] QB 514 [5.130]
Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372 [9.084]

Min Thai Holdings Pte Ltd v Suniable Pte Ltd & Anor [1999] 2 SLR 368 [9.058]
MMC Marketing Sdn Bhd v Syarikat Pengangkutan Sdn Bhd [1988] 3 MLJ 277 [6.046]
Mohamed Mydin v Ramiah [1965] MLJ 33 [4.017], [4.020]
Mohd Salim bin Said & Ors v Tang Pheng Kee & Anor and Another Appeal [2014] AMEJ
0122; [2014] 3 MLJ 504 [5.007]
Mondel v Steel [18351842] All ER Rep 511 [8.031]
Moore & Co v Landauer & Co [1921] 1 KB 73 [3.020]
Moorgate Mercantile Co Ltd v Twitchings [1977] AC 890 [5.061]
Mordaunt Bros v British Oil & Cake Mills Ltd [1910] 2 KB 502 [7.020]
Morelli v Fitch & Gibbons [1928] 2 KB 636 [3.073]
Morgan v Russell & Sons [1909] 1 KB 357 [2.017]
Moss v Hancock [1899] 2 QB 111 [2.006], [2.009]
Mucklow & Ors v Mangles (1808) 1 Taunt 318; (1808) 127 ER 856 [4.034], [4.035]
Mukand Ltd v Malaysia Steel Works (KL) Sdn Bhd [2010] AMEJ 0614; [2010] 5 CLJ 282;
[2011] 5 MLJ 578 [6.078], [6.088]
Multi-Purpose Bank Bhd v Diamond Agreement Sdn Bhd [2000] 5 MLJ 576 [6.129]
Mykala a/p Govindasamy lwn Kerajaan Malaysia [2011] MLJU 12 [6.134]
Nafas Abadi Holdings Sdn Bhd v Putrajaya Holdings Sdn Bhd and Bumiputra
Commerce Bank (unreported) [9.060]
Nanka-Bruce v Commonwealth Trust Ltd [1926] AC 77 [4.026], [4.029]
Nanyang Union Sdn Bhd v Gloveline Industries (M) Sdn Bhd [2006] 2 AMR 716; [2006] 2
MLJ 485 [2.115]
National Carriers Ltd v Panalpina (Northern) Ltd [1981] 1 All ER 161 [2.088]
National Employers Mutual General Insurance Association Ltd v Jones [1988] 2 WLR
952 [5.067], [5.068]
National Employers Mutual General Insurance Association Ltd v Jones [1990] 1 AC 24 [5.085]
Naughton v OCallaghan [1990] 3 All ER 191 [8.023]
Navulshaw v Brownrigg (1852) 61 ER 221 [5.101]
Newtons of Wembley Ltd v Williams [1965] 1 QB 560 [5.115]
Ng Ben Thong & Ors v Krishnan a/l Arumugam [1997] AMEJ 0062; [1998] 5 MLJ 579 [6.021]
Ng Ngat Siang v Arab-Malaysian Finance Bhd & Anor [1988] 3 MLJ 319, HC [5.015], [5.051], [5.065], [6.005]
Ng Sin Guan v Assunta Hospital [2015] AMEJ 443 [5.032]
Niblett Ltd v Confectioner Materials Co Ltd [1921] 3 KB 387; [1921] All ER Rep 459, CA [3.008], [3.009]
Nic Sang Leather Factory (a firm) v AJS International Trade Centre (HK) Ltd [1984]
HKCU 3 [9.026], [9.029]
Nicholson v Harper [1895] 2 Ch 415 [5.122]
Nicholson & Venn v Smith Marriott (1947) 177 LT 189 [3.019]
Nursey Spinning & Weaving Co Ltd [1881] ILR 5 Bom 92 [5.111]
Nylex Plastics Ltd v Raneyko Enterprises [1971] HKLR 307 [2.051]
NZ Securities & Finance Ltd v Wrightcars Ltd [1976] 1 NZLR 77 [5.123]
O
Oakwell Engineering International Pte Ltd v PCM Feam (M) Sdn Bhd [2014] 1 AMCR
596; [2014] MLJU 274 [7.067], [8.057]
Oed Technology Sdn Bhd v Knowledge Base Sdn Bhd [2010] MLJU 1896 [6.077]
Olds Discount Co Ltd v Krett & Anor [1940] 2 KB 117 [5.137]
Olex Focas Pty Ltd v Skodaexport Co Ltd [1998] 3 VR 380 [9.066]
Omar b Mat Ziki v Mokhtar b Amin [2001] 4 AMR 4612; [1996] 2 MLJ 687 [6.026]
Omega Securities Sdn Bhd v Dato Hamzah bin Abdul Majid [2011] 8 MLJ 12 [5.032]
Ong Siew Hwa v UMW Toyota Motor Sdn Bhd [2015] 5 AMR 754; [2016] 1 MLJ 132 [6.011]
Ong Siew Hwa v UMW Toyota Motor Sdn Bhd & Anor [2013] MLJU 1179 [8.008]
Ong Siew Hwa v UMW Toyota Motor Sdn Bhd & Anor [2014] 1 AMR 80; [2014] 9 MLJ
640 [2.041], [6.101], [8.053]
Oppenheimer v Attenborough & Son [1908] 1 KB 221 [5.090]
Oppenheimer v Frazer & Wyatt & Anor [1907] 2 KB 50 [5.087], [5.102]
Owners of Cargo Carried in the Ship Gang Cheng v Owners and/or Persons Interested
in the Ship Gang Cheng [1998] 6 MLJ 468 [9.015]
Pacific Inter-Link Sdn Bhd v Aikbee Timbers (Sabah) Sdn Bhd [2009] 6 MLJ 673 [1.019], [3.024], [5.022]
Pacific Motor Auctions Pty Ltd v Motor Credits (Hire Finance) [1965] AC 867, PC [5.132], [5.133], [6.042]
Palmer v Lark [1945] Ch 182 [6.037]
Panchanath a/l Ratnavale(suing as the Beneficiary to The Estate of Ratnavale s/o

Mahalingam @ Mahalingam Ratnavale Deceased Under will Dated 10 February
1971) v Sandra Segara Mahalingam (sued as The Executor and Trustee of The Last
will of Ratnavale s/o Mahalingam @ Mahalingam Ratnavale Deceased Dated 10
February 1971) & Ors [2012] AMEJ 0058; [2012] MLJU 224 [9.092]
Panchaud Freres SA v Et General Grain Co [1970] 1 Lloyds Rep 53 [6.054]
Panglima Aces Sdn Bhd v Highway Brick Works (Serendah) Sdn Bhd [2006] 3 CLJ 628 [6.088]
Pantanassa, The [1970] 1 All ER 848 [9.011], [9.015]
Partridge v Partridge [1894] 1 Ch 351 [7.033]
Pearlson Enterprises Ltd v Hong Leong Co Ltd [1968] 1 MLJ 24 (FC, Singapore) [6.009]
Pearson v Rose & Young [1951] 1 KB 275 [5.071], [5.079]
Pekat Teknologi Sdn Bhd v Novaris Pty Ltd & Anor [2014] AMEJ 1563 [3.051]
Pemunya Kargo atas Kapal Istana VI v Pemilik Kapal atau Vesel Filma Satu dari
Pelabuhan Jakarta Indonesia and Other Actions [2010] 6 AMR 314; [2011] 7 MLJ
145, HC [4.060], [9.008], [9.015]
Penta Continental Land Investment Co Ltd v Chung Kwok Restaurant Ltd & Anor [1967]
DCLR 22 [2.013]
Perbadanan Kemajuan Kraftangan Malaysia v DW Margaret a/p David Wilson (t/a

Kreatif Kraf) [2010] 3 AMR 707; [2010] 2 MLJ 713 [6.120], [6.124], [6.125], [6.126], [6.145]
Perbadanan Pengurusan Endah Parade v Magnificient Diagraph Sdn Bhd [2013] 6 MLJ
343 [6.134]
Perbadanan Riadah Sdn Bhd v Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri Selangor & Anor [2014]
AMEJ 0966 [6.034]
Perfect Kam Hung Sdn Bhd v Cheah Tai Hoe & Anor [2011] AMEJ 0076; [2011] 9 MLJ
593 [3.081]
Performen Europe BV v Mimitan Garments Factory Ltd [2008] HKCU 1737 [2.055], [2.057]
Perkins v Bell [1893] 1 QB 193 [6.088]

Phillips v Brooks Ltd [1919] 2 KB 243 [5.116]
Pickles Tents & Awnings Ltd v Joseph Group of Companies Inc (1981) 10 Man R (2d) 19
(Canada) [2.061]
PJDCP Malta Sdn Bhd v Lau Eng San & Anor [2010] MLJU 1692 [6.074]
Polenghi Brothers v Dried Milk Co Ltd (1904) 92 LT 64 [3.095], [3.096]
Poole v Smiths Car Sales (Balham) Ltd [1962] 1 WLR 744, CA [4.075], [4.077]
Popular Industries Ltd v Eastern Garment Manufacturing Sdn Bhd [1989] 3 MLJ 360 [6.014], [8.017], [9.006]
Port Jackson Stevedoring Pty Ltd v Salmond & Spraggon (Australia) Pty Ltd; The New
York Star [1980] 3 All ER 257 [9.016]
Potton Homes Ltd v Coleman Contractors Ltd (1984) 28 BLR 19, CA [9.072]
Power Curber International Ltd v National Bank of Kuwait Sak [1981] 1 WLR 1233 [9.041], [9.044], [9.048], [9.069]
Priest v Last [1903] 2 KB 148 [3.052]
Proctor & Gamble (Health and Beauty Care) Ltd v Carrier Holdings Ltd [2003] All ER (D)
211 [8.033]
Protonics Co Ltd v Kouoi Vincent (t/a Universal Enterprise Co [2006] 627 HKCU 1 [6.044]
PT Karya Sumiden Indonesia v Oceanmasters Marine Services Sdn Bhd & Anor [2016] 7
MLJ 589 [9.015], [9.019], [9.020]
Public Bank Bhd v Ng Kang Siang & Anor [2011] MLJU 988 [2.118]
Public Finance Bhd v Scotch Leasing Sdn Bhd (in receivership) (Perwira Habib Bank
Malaysia, Intervener) [1996] 2 AMR 2261; [1996] 2 MLJ 369 [2.004], [5.003]
Public Prosecutor v Viran [1947] 1 MLJ 62 [6.115], [6.117], [6.142]
Public Textiles Bhd v Lembaga Letrik Negara [1976] 2 MLJ 58 [5.047]
Puncak Niaga (M) Sdn Bhd v NZ Wheels Sdn Bhd [2012] 1 AMR 1; [2012] 1 MLJ 27, CA [2.119], [6.013], [6.096], [6.100], [6.101]
Qantas Airways Limited v Gama [2008] FCAFC 69 [9.085]
Qatar Islamic Bank v Asian Finance Bank Berhad & Ors [2014] AMEJ 1123; [2014] MLJU
780 [8.009]
Quality Talent Sdn Bhd v Lee Joo Guan & Ors [2011] 5 AMR 172; [2011] MLJU 645 [6.020]
Quintin Dick, Re, Lord Cloncurry v Fenton [1926] Ch 992 [7.035]
R v Tideswell [1905] 2 KB 273 [4.026], [4.027]
R (McCann) v Crown Court at Manchester [2003] 1 AC 787 [9.084]
R Pagnan & Fratelli v Corbisa Industrial Agropacuaria Limitada [1971] 1 All ER 165 [7.050]
Raju Jayaraman Kerpaya v Chung Khiaw Bank Ltd [1997] 3 AMR 2420 [5.041], [5.047]
Rapat Ribuan Sdn Bhd v Cheang Boon Ngoh & 4 Ors [2015] AMEJ 441 [5.006]
Rasiah Munusamy v Lim Tan & Sons Sdn Bhd [1985] 2 MLJ 291 [7.061]
RD Harbottle (Mercantile) Ltd & Anor v National Westminster Bank Ltd & Ors [1977] 2
All ER 862 [9.039], [9.040], [9.044]
Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Hansen-Tangen; Hansen-Tangen v Sanko Steamship Co

[1976] 3 All ER 570 [3.027], [3.028]
Regent Ohg aisenstadt Und Barig v Francesco of Jermyn Street Ltd [1981] 3 All ER 327 [6.058]
Reignmont Estate Sdn Bhd v Jaya Ikatan Plantations Sdn Bhd [2012] AMEJ 0196 [6.023]
Reliance Salt Limiteds case (2006) Indlaw SC 837 [9.079], [9.099]

Rendell v Turnbull & Co (1908) 27 NZLR 1067 [2.081], [2.084]
RH Willis & Son v British Car Auctions Ltd [1978] 1 WLR 438 [5.017], [5.018]
RHB-Cathay Securities Pte Ltd v Ibrahim Khan and Other Actions [2000] MSCLC 97244 [5.050]
Rimba Muda Timber Trading v Lim Kuoh Wee [2006] 4 AMR 665 [5.018]
Robert A Munro & Co v Meyer [1930] All ER Rep 241 [6.057]
Robert Stewart & Sons Ltd v Carapanayoti & Co Ltd [1962] 1 All ER 418 [7.053], [7.056]
Robinson v Graves [1935] 1 KB 579, CA [2.018], [2.020]
Rogers & Anor v Parish (Scarborough) Ltd & Anor [1987] QB 933 [3.065]
Rolls Razor Co v Cox [1967] 1 QB 552, CA [5.070]
Ross T Smyth & Co Ltd v TD Bailey Son & Co [1940] 3 All ER 60 [9.011]
Rowland v Divall [1923] 2 KB 500, [1923] All ER Rep 270 [3.004], [8.025], [8.049], [8.050]
RV Ward Ltd v Bignall [1967] 2 All ER 449 [7.025]
Saad Marwi v Chan Hwan Hua & Anor [2001] 2 AMR 2010; [2001] MLJU 761 [9.083]
Sababumi (Sandakan) Sdn Bhd v Datuk Yap Pak Leong [1998] 3 AMR 2160; [1998] 3 MLJ
151 [8.009]
Sabah Shell Petroleum Co Ltd & Anor v The Owners of and/or Any Other Persons
Interested in The Ship or Vessel The Borcos Takdir [2012] 1 AMCR 333; [2012]
MLJU 606 [7.072]
Saint Michel Marketing Co Ltd v South East Asian Bank Ltd [1996] MR 144 [9.044]
Salbiah & Anor v Nanyang Insurance Co [1966] 2 MLJ 16 [2.030]
Salcon Engineering Berhad v Circle Ring Network Sdn Bhd [2015] AMEJ 17 [6.080]
Saminathan v Pappa [1981] 1 MLJ 121 [9.086], [9.088], [9.091]
Samsung Hong Kong Ltd v Keen Time Trading Ltd [1999] 2 HKC 447 [3.022]
Samwoh Asphalt Premix Pte Ltd v Sum Cheong Piling Pte Ltd [2002] BLR 459, CA
(Singapore) [9.072], [9.104]
Sanders Brothers v Maclean & Co (1883) 11 QBD 327 [9.015]
Sanitus International Limited v Tayopa Trading and Construction Co Ltd [1989] HKEC
56 [3.098], [3.100]
Sarat Chunder Dey v Gopal Chunder Laha LR (1892) 19 IA 203 [5.040]
Satyanarayana & Ors v West Quay Multiport Private Limited (2015) Indlaw MUM 429 [9.072], [9.073], [9.075], [9.094], [9.103],
[9.104]
Saunders v Anglia Building Society [1970] 3 All ER 961; [1971] AC 1004 [5.029]
Saunders (Inspector of Taxes) v Pilcher [1949] 2 All ER 1097 [2.014], [2.015]
Scandinavian Bunkering (Singapore) Pte Ltd v MISC Berhad [2015] AMEJ 457, FC [7.059], [7.064], [7.065], [7.081]
Seath v Moore (1886) 11 App Cas 350 [4.035], [4.036], [4.037]
Seng Hin v Arathoon Sons Ltd [1968] 2 MLJ 123 [3.066]
Shamsundar L Asrani S/o Lachmandas Asrani & Ors v Shankha Brita Das Also known
as R Om Prakash s/o A Rajgopal & Ors (2015) Indlaw KAR 951 [9.093]
Shanti Builders & Anor v CIBA Industrial Workers Co-operative Housing Society
Limited & Anor (2012) Indlaw MUM 1329 [6.029]
Sharkey v Wernher [1956] AC 58 [7.039], [7.042], [7.043]
Shaw v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1987] 3 All ER 405, CA [5.056]
Shearson Lehman v Maclaine Watson (No 2) [1990] 3 All ER 723 [7.052]

Shencourt Sdn Bhd v Aseambankers Malaysia Bhd and Another Suit [2011] MLJU 552 [8.028]
Shigenori Ono v Thong Foo Ching & Ors [1992] 1 MLJ 117 [6.026]
Shipton, Anderson & Co v Weil Brothers & Co [1912] 1 KB 574 [6.052]
Shirley Kok Gek Ngo & Anor v Tanah Emas Bio-Tech (M) Sdn Bhd [2014] AMEJ 0822, CA [6.030]
Shiv Kirpal Singh v Shri VV Giri (1970) Indlaw SC 308 [6.121]
Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson [2004] 1 AC 919 [5.058], [5.059], [5.082]
Sia Hiong Tee & Ors v Chong Su Kong & Ors [2015] 4 AMR 31; [2015] MLJU 233 [5.025], [5.103]
Sim Thong Realty Sdn Bhd v Teh Kim Dar [2003] 4 AMR 460; [2003] 3 CLJ 227 [5.111]
Sin Gee Seng v Wai Wah Trading Co [1962] MLJ 189, HC [5.020], [5.084]
Slater v Hoyle & Smith [1920] 2 KB 11 [8.028], [8.030]
Soames & Ors v British Empire Shipping Co [18431860] All ER Rep 844 [6.092]
SPM Membrane Switch Sdn Bhd v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor [2015] AMEJ 1795; [2016] 1
MLJ 464, FC [7.068], [8.009]
Sri Minal Construction Sdn Bhd v Hong Kong Bank Malaysia Berhad [2007] 6 AMR 426;
[2007] 7 MLJ 367 [8.062]
St Albans City & District Council v International Computers Ltd [1996] 4 All ER 481 [2.024]
Stadium Finance v Robbins [1962] 2 QB 664 [5.072], [5.079]
Standard Chartered Bank v Boomland Development Sdn Bhd & Ors [1997] 4 AMR 3442 [5.021], [5.024]
Standard Chartered Bank v Dorchester LNG (2) Limited Mt Erin Schulte [2014] EWCA
Civ 1382 (Rev 1); [2015] 3 WLR 261 [9.043]
Standard Chartered Bank Malaysia Bhd v Duli Yang Maha Mulia Tuanku Jaafar Ibni
Almarhum Tuanku Abdul Rahman, Yang Di Pertuan Besar Negeri Sembilan Darul
Khusus [2009] 6 AMR 350; [2009] 4 MLJ 1, Special Court [9.053], [9.056], [9.069], [9.070], [9.103]
State of Maharashtra v National Construction Company (1996) 1 SCC 735; (1996) Indlaw
SC 1169 [9.080]
State Tailor Sdn Bhd v Nallapan [2005] 2 MLJ 589 [5.006]
Stern v McArthur (1988) 165 CLR 489 [9.063], [9.064], [9.066], [9.069], [9.072]
Straits Engineering Contracting Pte Ltd v Merteks Pte Ltd [1996] MSCLC 96400, CA [6.037]
Subramaniam a/l Paramasivam & Ors v Malaysian Airlines System Bhd [2002] 1 AMR
254; [2002] 1 MLJ 45 [7.083]
Sumatec Engineering and Construction Sdn Bhd v Malaysian Refining Company Sdn [9.036], [9.060], [9.062], [9.063], [9.064],
Bhd [2012] 2 AMR 673; [2012] MLJU 152 [9.081], [9.104]
Summers v Havard [2011] EWCA Civ 764 [5.101]
Sun Wah Oil & Cereals Ltd v Gee Tai Trading Co Ltd [1993] 1 HKC 132 [7.048], [8.019]
Sungei Way Leasing Sdn Bhd v Sena Land Development Sdn Bhd [1989] 3 MLJ 37 [4.087]
Sunrise Sdn Bhd v L & M Agencies Sdn Bhd [1999] 3 AMR 3208; [1999] 3 MLJ 544, HC [3.042], [3.047]
Super Dense International Ltd v International Communication Services Ltd [2003]

HKCU 1166 [2.067]
Superintendent of Lands and Surveys Kuching v Jamilah Bte Abdul Hamid & Ors (2013)
5 BLR 1259; [2013] MLJU 262 [6.134]
Sure Woolen Yarns Co Ltd v Global Apparel Group Ltd [2005] HKCU 1 [3.102]
Sushil Jain v Meharban Singh (2012) Indlaw DEL 1414 [6.025]
Sutures (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v Worldwide Holdings Bhd & 2 Ors [2014] AMEJ 0562;
[2015] 8 MLJ 659, HC [6.038], [7.032], [8.061], [9.046]
Svenska Handelsbanken v Indian Charge Chrome AIR 1994 SC 626; (1993) Indlaw SC
728 [9.074], [9.077], [9.081], [9.082], [9.097]
Syarikat Batu Sinar v UMBC Finance [1990] 3 MLJ 468, HC [5.066], [5.133], [5.139]
Syarikat Sesco Bhd (formerly known as Sarawak Electricity Supply Corp (SESCO)) v Yu
Thian Motor Services Sdn Bhd [2013] 2 MLJ 116 [5.028]
Sztejn v J Henry Schroder Banking Corporation (1941) 31 NYS 2d 631 [9.072], [9.103]
Tahir Fadallah v John Pollak [2013] EWHC 3159, QB [5.076]
Tai Hing Cotton Mills Ltd v Kamsing Knitting Factory [1978] 1 All ER 515 [8.021]
Tan Chong & Sons Motor Company (Sdn) Berhad v Alan Mcknight [1983] 1 MLJ 220, FC [8.032]
Tan Meng San v Lim Kim Swee [1962] MLJ 174, CA [6.026]
Tan Yoke Kwee & Ors v Sistem Lingkaran Lebuhraya Sdn Bhd & Ors [2009] 5 AMR 444;
[2009] MLJU 215 [6.134]
Tang He, The [2000] 4 HKC 701 [4.064], [9.030]
Tang Yoke Kheng v Lek Benedict [2005] 3 SLR(R) 263 [9.085], [9.086]
Tansley v Turner (1835) 2 Bing NC 151; 132 ER 60 [4.026], [4.028]
Taritipan Sdn Bhd v Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri [1996] MLJU 176 [7.043]
Techtrans Construction India Private Limited, Ksheeraabd Constructions Private

Limited, Joint Venture Represented by its authorized signatory Majid Khalil Khalili
v Reliance Utility Engineers Limited (formerly known as Utility Energytech and
Engineers Private Limited) & Anor (2014) Indlaw HYD 1062 [9.078], [9.098], [9.104]
Teh Wan Sang & Sons Sdn Bhd v See Teow Chuan [1984] 1 MLJ 130 [7.060]
Tenaga Nasional Berhad v AWP Enterprise (M) Sdn Bhd [2014] AMEJ 1398; [2014] MLJU
1369, CA [6.125]
Tenaga Nasional Bhd v Teobros Development Sdn Bhd [2008] 5 AMR 310 [5.041], [5.047]
Thirupathy a/p Sinnadurai (P) v Daffoland Development Sdn Bhd [2001] AMEJ 0028;
[2001] MLJU 116 [6.134]
Thomas Bruce Hart v Joseph OConnor & Ors [1985] AC 1000 [6.110]
Thornett & Fehr v Beers & Sons [1919] 1 KB 486 [3.075]
Ting Chuen Peng & Ors v Yap Kian @ Yap Sin Tian & Anor [2016] 7 MLJ 445 [8.009]
Toeh Kee Keong v Tambun Mining Co Ltd [1968] 1 MLJ 39, FC [7.058], [7.059]
Torvan Shipping Ltd v Gilman & Co Ltd [1977] HKCU 50, CA [4.030], [4.033]
Toyo Photo Products Sdn Bhd v Terence Ee Soon Lee [2012] AMEJ 0052; [2012] MLJU 35 [6.006], [6.087], [7.037]
TR Usah ak Lutong & Ors v Lembaga Tabung Haji & Ors [2013] 4 MLJ 578, CA [6.116]
Trafalgar House Construction Ltd v General Surety and Guarantee Co Ltd [1996] 1 AC
199, HL [9.072]
Trans Trust SPRL v Danubian Trading Co LD [1952] 2 QB 297 [9.033]
Triefus & Co Ltd v Post Office [1957] 2 All ER 387 [7.015]
Tsakiroglou & Co Ltd v Noblee Thorl gmbh [1962] AC 93 [6.060]
TTI Team Telecom International Limited, Axarte Limited v Hutchison 3G UK Limited

[2003] EWHC 762 (TCC) [9.071], [9.073], [9.081], [9.103], [9.104]
Tung Ga Linen & Cotton (HK) Ltd v Winnitex Investment Co Ltd [2006] 1234 HKCU 1 [6.084], [6.085]
Tyrone Crystal Ltd v European Asian Bank & Anor [1985] 2 HKC 762 [5.141]
Ullock v Reddelein (1828) Dan & Ll 6 [4.046], [4.048]

Underwood Ltd v Burgh Castle Brick and Cement Syndicate [1922] 1 KB 343 [4.024], [4.025]
Uni Wall Architectural Product & Services Sdn Bhd v Global Upline Sdn Bhd [2011] 2
AMCR 600; [2011] MLJU 517 [8.061]
Unibrite Electrical Engineering Sdn Bhd v Central Cables Bhd [2008] AMEJ 0075; [2009]
MLJU 1708 [2.109]
Union Alloy (M) Sdn Bhd v Syarikat Pembenaan Yeoh Tiong Lay Sdn Bhd [1993] 2 AMR
2012; [1993] 3 MLJ 167 [3.040], [3.042], [3.046], [3.047], [3.048]
Union of India vs CM Patel and Company (1975) Indlaw SC 240 [9.093]
United Chemical Industries Co Ltd v Telemac (HK) Ltd [1972] HKLR 420 [3.086]
United City Merchants (Investments) Ltd & Anor v Royal Bank of Canada & Ors [1983]
AC 168 [9.048]
United City Merchants (Investments) Ltd & Ors v Royal Bank of Canada & Ors [1982] 2
All ER 720 [9.034], [9.102]
United States Steel Products Company Great Western Railway Company [1916] 1 AC
189 [7.019]
Universal Cable (M) Bhd v Bakti Arena Sdn Bhd & Ors [2000] AMEJ 0078; [2000] 3 CLJ [2.121], [2.122], [6.074], [6.077], [6.079],
375; [2000] MLJU 106 [6.088], [7.080]
Vale v Bayle (1775) 1 Cowp 294; 98 ER 1094 [4.046], [4.049]
Varley v Whipp [1900] 1 QB 513 [3.014], [3.021]
Vasantha Kumar a/l Krishnan v Saravanan a/l Murugan & Ors [2014] 4 AMR 546; [2015]
8 MLJ 45 [6.096]
Ved Parkash Kharbanda v Vimal Bindal (2013) Indlaw DEL 928 [6.030]
Vic Mill Limited, In re [1913] 1 Ch 183; affirmed by the Court of Appeal in [1913] 1 Ch
465 [7.055]
Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd [1949] 2 KB 528 [8.046]
Vitachem (M) Sdn Bhd v Ing Hua Fu Marine Line Sdn Bhd [2014] AMEJ 1004; [2014] 6
MLJ 566, CA [9.019]
Vitol SA v Norelf Ltd; The Santa Clara [1996] 3 All ER 193 [7.031]
Wah Tat Bank Ltd & Ors v Chan Cheng Kum & Ors [1967] 2 MLJ 263 [9.015]
Wait, Re [1927] 1 Ch 606 [2.072], [2.074]
Wait (trading as Wait & James), Re; The Trustee v Humphries & Bobbett [1926] All ER
Rep 433 [8.040], [8.042]
Walton Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1988) 164 CLR 387, HC [5.039]
Wardars (Import & Export) Co Ltd v W Norwood & Sons Ltd [1968] 2 QB 663 [4.030], [4.034], [4.046], [4.050]
Wasco Lindung Sdn Bhd v Lustre Metals & Minerals Sdn Bhd [2014] AMEJ 1307; [2015]
9 MLJ 610 [3.087], [3.088], [3.092], [6.008], [8.018]
Watson Bros v Hornby [1942] 2 All ER 506 [7.039], [7.040], [7.043]
Watts v Friend (1830) 10 B & C 446 [2.068]
Wee Lian Construction Sdn Bhd v Ingersoll-Jati Malaysia Sdn Bhd [2004] AMEJ 0256 [5.023]
Wee Lian Construction Sdn Bhd v Ingersoll-Jati Malaysia Sdn Bhd [2010] 5 AMR 123;
[2010] 3 MLJ 425; [2010] 4 CLJ 203, CA [3.013], [3.023], [6.075], [6.077], [6.079]
Wertheim v Chicoutimi Pulp Co [1911] AC 301, PC [8.024]
White & Carter (Councils) Ltd v Mc Gregor [1961] 3 All ER 1178 [7.030]
William Artists International Ltd v Chevalier (Hong Kong) Ltd [1996] 3 HKC 545 [3.087], [3.089]
Wimble, Sons & Co v Rosenberg & Sons [1913] 3 KB 743 [6.060], [6.061]
Winner Co (HK) Ltd v AA Seidman & Co (1972) HKLR 86 [8.015], [8.016]
WJ Alan & Co Ltd v El Nasr Export & Import Co [1972] 2 QB 189 [9.037], [9.047], [9.055], [9.070], [9.073]
WL Thompson Ltd v Robinson (Gunmakers) Ltd [1955] 1 All ER 154 [7.053], [7.054]
Wong Kup Sing v Jeram Rubber Estates Ltd [1969] 1 MLJ 245 [6.039]
Wong Ng Kai Fung Patsy v Yau Lai Chu (t/a New Date Pet Trimming Saloon) [2005] 4
HKC 42 [2.003]
Wood Hall Ltd v The Pipeline Authority & Anor (1979) 141 CLR 443, High Court of
Australia [9.072]
Woodhouse AC Israel Cocoa Ltd SA & Anor v Nigerian Produce Marketing Co Ltd [1972]
AC 741, HL [5.057]
Worcester Works Finance Co Ltd v Cooden Engineering Co Ltd [1971] 3 All ER 708 [5.134]
Yap Chin Hock & Anor v Cheng Wang Loong [1964] 1 MLJ 276 [9.007]
Yap Ham Seow v Fatimawati Bt Ismail & Ors and Another Appeal [2014] 2 AMR 301;
[2013] MLJU 1015 [5.007]
Yeo Hiap Seng v Australian Food Corp Pte Ltd & Anor [1991] 3 MLJ 144 [6.069]
YK Fung Securities Sdn Bhd v James Capel (Far East) Ltd [1997] 2 AMR 1901; [1997] 2
MLJ 621 [6.044]
Yuill & Co v Scott Robson [1907] 1 KB 685 [9.021], [9.023]
Yung Chen Wood Industry Sdn Bhd v Scott & English (M) Sdn Bhd [2006] 7 MLJ 57 [2.116]
Zego Ltd v Valdivia [1991] 1 HKC 11 [6.019]
Zulkarnain Bin Buang v Ridwan Bin Hj Mohd Jamil [1998] 1 LNS 504 [6.021]

2017 - 04 - 25 page xl

Table of Statutes
Table of Statutes
MALAYSIA
Arbitration Act 2005

s 11(1) [9.059]
Bills of Sale Act 1950 [4.097]
Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1950 [9.046]
s 2 [9.019]
s 4 [9.019]
First Schedule [9.019]
Central Bank Act 1958 [2.007]
s 24(1) [2.007]
s 24(2) [2.007]
Pt III [2.007]
Central Bank Act 2009
s 99 [2.007]
s 100(a) [2.007]
Civil Law Act 1956
s 3(1)(a) [5.023]
s 3(1)(b) [5.023]
s 3(1)(c) [5.023]
s 5 [1.019], [8.032], [9.015]
s 5(1) [1.019], [5.024]
s 5(2) [1.018], [1.019], [3.009], [3.024], [5.022], [5.023]
s 12 [5.088]
s 15 [2.095], [2.096]
s 15(2) proviso [2.095]
s 16 [2.095], [2.096]
s 16(5)(c) [2.096]
Companies Act 1965 [4.097], [6.133]
Consumer Protection Act 1999 [5.024], [6.011], [6.096], [6.102], [9.070]
s 2(4) [5.024], [6.138], [6.141]
s 3 [6.095]
s 3(b)(i)(iii) [6.100], [6.101]
s 5 [6.102]
s 16 [6.101]
s 20 [6.140]
s 21A [6.140]
s 24A [6.103]
s 24A(a) [6.104]
s 24A(b) [6.105]
s 24A(c) [5.024], [6.106], [6.108]
s 24B [6.103], [6.112], [6.138], [6.140], [6.142], [6.143], [6.144],
[6.145], [6.146]
s 24C [6.110], [6.111]
s 24D [6.110], [6.111]
s 24E [6.110]
s 24G(1) [6.111]
s 24G(2) [6.111]
s 62 [6.135], [6.136]
s 64 [6.135]
s 98 [6.109]
Pt IIIA [5.024], [6.102], [6.103], [6.106], [6.112], [6.136], [6.138],
[6.139], [6.142], [6.144], [6.145], [6.146], [8.007]
Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act 2010 [5.034], [6.102], [8.007]
s 1(3) [6.102]
s 24B [5.024]
Part IIIA [5.024]
Contract Enactment (Enactment 22 of 1899) (Perak) [1.010]
Chapter VII (ss 76123) [1.010]
Contract Enactment (Enactment 23 of 1899) (Negri Sembilan) [1.010]
Contract Enactment (Enactment No. 1 of 1900) (Pahang) [1.010]
Contract Enactment (Enactment No. 30 of 1899) (Selangor) [1.010]
Contracts Act 1950 [5.003], [5.024]
s 2 [6.104]
s 13 [5.081]
s 14 [5.082]
s 15 [5.110]
s 16 [5.110]
s 17 [5.110], [9.072], [9.079], [9.093], [9.101]
s 18 [5.110], [5.111]
s 19 [5.082], [5.111]
s 19(1) [5.109]
s 38(1) [6.008]
s 40 [8.058], [8.059], [8.060], [8.061]
s 41 [6.008]
s 42 [6.008]
s 52 [6.020], [6.021], [6.026], [6.029], [6.030], [6.039]
s 52 illustration (a) [6.026], [6.028], [6.039]
s 53 [6.026], [6.029], [6.030], [6.031]
s 53 illustration (a) [6.026], [6.027]
s 55 [6.026], [6.032]
s 56(1) [8.058]
s 56(2) [8.058]
s 56(3) [8.058]
s 74 [7.046], [7.066], [7.068], [8.006], [8.016]
s 74 illustrations (a)(r) [7.066]
s 74(1) [7.066]
s 75 [7.066]
s 79 [9.079]
s 124 [6.047]
Part X [5.003]
Courts Ordinance 1948
s 61 [6.122]
s 80 [6.122]
Evidence Act 1950
s 92 [3.084]
s 101 [9.085]
s 102 [9.085]
s 115 [5.048]
Federal Constitution
Art 160(2) [1.021], [1.029]
Federal Constitution (Modification of Laws) (Ordinances
and Proclamations) Order 1958 [1.016]
Finance Companies Act 1969
s 49 [6.133]
Hire-Purchase Act 1967 [5.059]
Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967
s 3 [6.100]
Land Acquisition Act 1960 [5.104]
Limitation Act 1953 [6.117]
s 33 [6.117]
Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Rules 1959 [2.118]
National Land Code 1965
s 340(3) proviso [5.103]
Ordinance No. 28
s 2 [6.115]
s 3 [6.115]
Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 [6.117]
Road Traffic Ordinance 1958 [5.066]
Road Transport Act 1987 [5.066]
Sale of Goods Act 1957 [1.005], [1.018], [2.006]
s 1(2) [1.018]
s 2 [2.001], [2.002], [2.003], [2.008], [2.010], [2.012], [2.023],
[2.043], [2.067], [2.070], [2.093], [4.007], [4.011], [4.034],
[5.003], [5.011], [5.020], [5.069], [5.076], [5.077], [5.080],
[5.115], [5.118], [5.121], [5.129], [5.137], [5.138], [5.139],
[6.002], [6.008], [6.041], [7.014], [7.023], [7.027], [7.046],
[8.040], [9.015]
s 2(1) [1.030], [2.028], [2.090], [4.007], [4.020], [4.007], [5.076]
s 3 [1.020], [1.031], [2.025], [2.129], [5.003], [6.039], [6.049],
[9.002], [9.003]
s 4 [2.025]
s 4(1) [2.026] , [2.033], [2.034], [2.043], [2.045], [2.089], [4.001],
[6.008], [7.027], [8.051]
s 4(2) [2.053]
s 4(3) [2.054], [2.060], [2.067], [2.089], [4.001], [4.030], [4.034]
s 4(4) [2.062], [2.063]
s 5 [2.025], [2.064]
s 5(1) [2.064]
s 5(2) [2.064]
ss 68 [2.025]
s 6 [2.067]
s 6(1) [2.067], [4.010]
s 6(3) [2.067], [2.068], [2.069]
s 7 [2.080], [2.084], [2.085], [2.086], [2.087], [2.090], [2.091],
[2.101]
s 8 [2.090], [2.091], [2.093], [2.094], [2.097], [2.098], [2.101]
s 9 [2.051], [7.038], [7.041]
s 9(1) [2.051], [7.039]
s 9(2) [2.051], [7.039]
ss 1117 [2.025]
s 11 [2.107], [2.108], [2.109]
s 12 [2.111], [2.112], [2.114], [8.025], [9.003]
s 12(2) [2.112], [2.114], [2.117], [2.118], [8.051]
s 12(3) [2.113], [2.121], [8.051]
s 12(4) [2.122], [2.127]
s 13 [8.001], [8.004], [8.025], [9.003]
s 13(1) [2.130], [2.131], [8.003]
s 13(2) [2.132], [2.133], [8.004]
s 13(3) [2.134], [8.004]
ss 1417 [3.001], [3.103]
s 14 [3.001], [3.003], [3.004], [3.005], [8.005], [8.027], [8.051]
s 14(a) [3.004], [3.006], [3.007], [3.008]
s 14(b) [3.004], [3.008], [3.009]
s 14(c) [3.004]
s 15 [3.001], [3.012], [3.013], [3.014], [3.016], [3.017], [3.020],
[3.021], [3.024], [3.025], [3.038], [3.094], [8.005]
s 15(2) [2.095]
s 16 [2.041], [3.001], [3.032], [3.033], [3.034], [3.036], [3.038],
[3.065], [3.078], [8.005]
s 16(1) [3.033]
s 16(1)(a) [3.034], [3.035], [3.036], [3.037], [3.038], [3.039], [3.040],
[3.042], [3.046], [3.047], [3.049], [3.051], [3.052], [3.053],
[3.054], [3.081]
s 16(1)(a) proviso [3.041]
s 16(1)(b) [3.034], [3.035], [3.036], [3.037], [3.038], [3.055], [3.064],
[3.065], [3.071], [3.074], [3.081]
s 16(1)(b) proviso [3.071], [3.072], [3.073], [3.075]
s 16(2) [3.078]
ss 1730 [5.006]
s 17 [3.001], [3.033], [3.080], [3.081], [3.084], [3.088], [3.092],
[3.093], [8.005]
s 17(1)(a) [3.094]
s 17(2) [3.089]
s 17(2)(a) [3.090], [3.094], [3.097], [3.100]
s 17(2)(b) [3.095], [3.096], [3.097]

s 17(2)(c) [3.098], [3.100], [3.101]
s 18 [2.070], [2.071], [4.012], [4.030], [9.008]
s 19 [2.070], [2.090], [4.012], [4.013], [4.030], [7.037], [9.007],
[9.008], [9.019]
s 19(2) [4.013]
s 19(3) [4.013], [4.014], [8.006]
ss 2024 [4.013], [4.082], [8.006], [2.090]
s 20 [2.007], [4.014], [4.015], [4.016], [4.017], [4.018], [4.019],
[4.021], [4.022], [4.023], [4.024], [5.110], [6.004], [6.005],
[8.006], [9.007]
s 21 [4.021], [4.022], [4.024]
s 22 [4.026], [4.027]
s 23 [2.077], [4.030], [9.008]
s 23(1) [2.078], [4.030], [4.031], [4.032], [4.033], [4.034], [4.057],
[9.007]
s 23(2) [4.038], [4.045], [4.046], [4.057], [4.059], [4.061], [4.062],
[9.015]
s 24 [2.007], [4.073], [4.074], [4.075], [4.078], [4.079]
s 24(a) [4.075], [4.076]
s 24(b) [4.075], [4.077], [4.078]
s 25 [4.081] , [4.089], [8.006], [9.005], [9.015], [9.019]
s 25(1) [4.069], [4.080], [4.082], [9.030]
s 25(2) [4.040], [4.062], [4.063]
s 26 [2.090], [6.062]
s 26 proviso 1 [2.093]
ss 2730 [5.002], [5.009]
s 27 [5.010], [5.014], [5.020], [5.066]
s 27(1) [5.021], [5.035], [5.043], [5.051], [5.052], [5.067], [5.080]
s 27(1) proviso [5.020], [5.035], [5.036], [5.054], [5.067], [5.068], [5.069],
[5.076], [5.080], [5.086], [5.115]
s 28 [5.035], [5.105], [5.106], [5.107]
s 29 [5.035], [5.082], [5.108], [5.112], [5.116]
s 30(1) [5.035], [5.056], [5.117], [5.119], [5.126], [5.133], [5.135],
[5.136], [5.137], [5.139]
s 30(2) [5.020], [5.021], [5.035], [5.056], [5.115], [5.140], [5.142],
[5.144]
s 31 [6.007], [6.008], [6.014]
s 32 [6.014], [6.016], [6.017], [6.018], [6.028], [6.031], [6.039],
[7.009]
ss 3339 [6.041], [6.043]
s 33 [5.084], [5.139]
s 34 [6.042]
s 35 [6.042]
s 36 [6.044]
s 36(1) [6.043]
s 36(2) [6.044]
s 36(3) [4.007], [4.034], [6.041], [6.044]
s 36(3) proviso [4.007], [6.041]
s 36(4) [6.044]
s 36(5) [6.044]
s 37 [6.053], [8.001], [8.010]
s 37(1) [6.050], [6.053], [6.058], [8.010]
s 37(2) [6.052], [8.010]
s 37(3) [6.052], [8.010]
s 37(4) [6.053], [8.010]
s 38 [8.001]
s 38(1) [6.055], [8.011]
s 38(2) [6.056], [6.057], [6.058], [8.011]
s 39 [6.045]
s 39(1) [4.007], [6.041], [6.045], [6.059], [9.015]
s 39(2) [6.045], [6.059]
s 39(3) [6.045], [6.060], [9.004], [9.005]
s 40 [6.062]
s 41 [3.095], [6.063], [6.071], [6.072], [6.077], [6.079], [6.080],
[6.084], [6.089], [6.090], [8.001]
s 41(1) [6.064], [6.065], [6.075], [6.137], [8.012]
s 41(2) [6.088], [8.012]
s 42 [6.017], [6.053], [6.063], [6.066], [6.068], [6.070], [6.071],
[6.073], [6.074], [6.075], [6.078], [6.079], [6.080], [6.081],
[6.082], [6.084], [6.085], [6.086], [6.087], [6.088], [6.089],
[6.090], [7.037], [8.001], [8.012]
s 43 [6.073], [6.091], [8.001], [8.012], [8.029]
s 44 [6.017], [6.092]
s 44 proviso [6.093], [6.094]
s 45(1) [7.001], [7.004]
s 45(2) [7.003]
s 46 [7.007]
s 46(1)(a) [7.013]
s 46(2) [7.007]
s 47(1) [7.008]
s 47(1)(a)(c) [7.009]
s 47(2) [6.048], [7.008]
s 48 [7.010]
s 49 [7.011]
s 49(1) [7.012], [7.013]
s 49(1)(a) [7.013]
s 49(2) [7.013]
s 50 [7.014]
s 51 [7.014]
s 51(1) [7.015]
s 51(2) [7.017]
s 51(5) [9.005]
s 52 [4.033], [7.015]
s 52(1) [7.015]
s 52(2) [7.016], [7.018]
s 53 [7.019]
s 53(1) [7.021], [7.023], [9.005]
s 54 [7.025]
s 54(2) [7.024]
s 54(3) [7.024]
s 54(4) [7.025]
s 55 [1.035], [6.087]
s 55(1) [6.004], [7.028], [7.029], [7.036], [7.037], [7.039]
s 55(2) [7.032], [8.006]
s 56 [6.004], [7.036], [7.044], [7.065], [8.006]
s 57 [8.001], [8.014], [8.015], [8.031]
s 58
[6.040], [8.001], [8.040], [8.041], [8.042]
s 59 [8.001], [8.024], [8.025], [8.029], [8.050]
s 59(1) [8.024]
s 59(1)(a) [8.024]
s 59(1)(b) [8.024]
s 59(2) [8.031]
s 60 [8.001]
s 61(1) [7.056], [8.001], [8.043]
s 61(2)(a) [8.044]
s 61(2)(b) [8.044]
s 62 [1.032], [1.035], [1.039], [1.040], [8.007], [9.004]
s 64 [1.029]
s 64(1) [1.029], [9.002], [9.004]
s 64(3) [2.034]
Chapter II [2.025]
Chapter IV [6.001]
Sale of Goods (Amendment and Extension Act) 1990 [1.018]
Sale of Goods Enactment 1932 (Federated Malay States) [1.028]
Sale of Goods Enactment (No. 1 of 1932) of the Federated Malay
States [1.014], [1.028]
s 1 [1.013]
Sale of Goods Enactment (No. 9 of 1932) (Johore) [1.014]
Sale of Goods Enactment (No. 116) (Johore) [1.014]
Sale of Goods Enactment (Trengganu No. 9 of 1360) [1.014]
Sale of Goods Ordinance
s 16(1)(a) [3.044], [3.045]
Sale of Goods (Malay States) Ordinance 1957 (No. 1 of 1957) [1.015], [1.018], [8.032]
s 1 [1.017]
s 2 [1.016]
s 29 [5.113]
s 30(2) [5.143]
Specific Relief Act 1950
s 11(2) [6.039]
Chapter II [6.040]
AUSTRALIA
Evidence Act
s 140 [9.085]
Consumer Law [9.069]
Sale of Goods Act 1895 (South Australia) [3.074]
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) [9.070]
Sch 2 [9.064]
CANADA
Water Carriage of Goods Act 1936 [9.016]
HONG KONG
Control of Exemption Clauses Ordinance [6.137], [6.138], [6.144]

Law Amendment and Reform (Consolidation) Ordinance
s 21 [5.088]
Sales of Goods Ordinance (Ordinance No. 4 of 1896) [1.007]
Sales of Goods Ordinance 1997
Sale of Goods Ordinance
s 21(1) [9.030]
s 25 [5.116]
s 27(2) [5.141], [5.142]
s 30 [6.017]
s 34 [6.059]
s 34(1) [6.059]
s 37 [6.017]
s 37(1)(b) [6.085]
s 37(2) [6.137]
s 37(3) [6.137]
s 37(4) [6.070]
s 38 [8.029]
s 50(3) [7.048]
s 51 [6.017]
s 53(2) [8.021]
s 53(3) [8.021]
s 54 [8.041]
s 55 [8.031]
s 55(1) [8.031]
s 55(2) [8.031]
s 57 [6.137]
INDIA
Consumer Protection Act 1996 [6.101]

Contract Act 1872 [1.007], [1.008]
s 17 [9.093], [9.101]
s 51 [6.029]
s 52 [6.029]
s 73 [7.046]
s 126 [9.079]
Chapter VII (ss 76125) [1.008], [1.010], [1.011], [1.013], [1.028]
Sale of Goods Act 1930 [1.007], [1.013]
s 65 [1.013]
Supreme Court Rules
O 11 r 1(e) [9.006]
NIGERIA
Supreme Court Ordinance No. 23 of 1943, Laws of Nigeria

s 12 [6.119]
UNITED KINGDOM
Bills of Exchange Act 1882 [1.026]

Bills of Lading Act 1855 [9.015], [9.019]
s 1 [9.018]
s 3 [9.018]
Bretton Woods Agreements Act 1945 [9.034]
Companies Act 1948
Part X [9.041]
Copyright Act 1956 [2.047]
Factors Act (5 & 6 Vict c 39) [5.016]
Factors Act 1889 [5.020], [5.021], [5.023], [5.068], [5.088]
s 1(1) [5.076], [5.115]
s 1(2) [5.020], [5.084], [5.120], [5.126]
s 2 [5.085], [5.115]
s 2(1) [5.020], [5.054], [5.076], [5.115]
s 2(1) proviso [5.054]
s 9 [5.020], [5.083], [5.085], [5.086], [5.115]
Hire-Purchase Act 1964
s 27 [5.058], [5.059]
Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 [2.095]
Misrepresentation Act 1967 [1.019]
Police (Property) Act 1897 [5.083]
Sale of Goods Act 1893 [1.006], [1.007], [1.018], [1.019], [1.011], [3.079], [5.020]
s 1(3) [2.063]
s 1(4) [5.138]
s 4 [8.039]
s 5(1) [2.069]
s 5(2) [9.004]
s 6 [2.085]
s 8 [7.041]
s 11 [9.003]
s 11(1)(b) [9.003]
s 12 [3.004], [3.009]
s 12(1) [3.008]
s 12(2) [3.008]
s 14 [3.041]
s 14(1) [6.062]
s 14(2) [3.056], [6.062]
s 14(3) [3.078]
s 15 [3.011], [3.016]
s 16(2) [3.011]
s 18, r 1 [4.023]
s 18, r 3 [4.024], [4.026], [4.027]
s 18(1) [7.011]
s 18(5)(1) [9.007]
s 18(5)(2) [9.015]
s 20 [9.007]
s 21(1) [5.052], [5.054]
s 23 [3.011]
s 25(1) [5.134], [5.135], [5.137]
s 25(2) [7.022]
s 29(3) [4.034]
s 30(1) [6.058]
s 31(2) [6.058]
s 31(3) [4.034]
s 32(1) [9.015]
s 32(3) [6.060], [6.061]
s 34 [6.090]
s 35 [6.082], [6.090]
s 39(1)(a) [7.011]
s 45(2) [7.017]
s 47 [7.020], [7.021], [7.022], [7.023]
s 47 proviso [7.022]
s 50 [7.053]
s 50(2) [7.049], [7.051], [8.016]
s 50(3) [7.049], [7.050], [7.051], [7.053], [7.065], [7.066], [8.016]
s 52 [8.042]
s 53(2) [8.021]
s 55 [1.032]
s 61(2) [2.129], [9.003], [9.004]
Sale of Goods Act 1979 [1.006], [1.018], [1.019], [5.076], [5.120], [8.028]
s 1(4) [5.138]
s 11(4) [6.067]
s 12 [8.027]
s 12(2)(b) [3.009]
s 13(1) [3.024]
s 14 [3.056], [3.065]
s 14(2) [6.067]
s 14(6) [6.067]
s 18 [2.075]
s 21 [5.056]
s 21(1) [5.067]
s 21(1)(a) [5.067]
s 25 [5.056], [5.127], [5.128], [5.144]
s 25(1) [5.126]
s 35 [6.067], [6.068]
s 35(1) [6.067], [6.068]
s 50 [7.044]
s 50(1) [7.044]
s 50(2) [7.045], [7.049], [7.065], [8.016]
s 50(3) [7.045], [7.049], [7.052], [7.053], [8.016]
s 51 [8.014], [8.015]
s 51(3) [8.015]
s 61 [2.024]
s 61(1) [5.128]
s 61(3) [5.099]
Sale of Goods (Amendment) Act 1994 [5.088]
Supply of Goods and Services Act 1979
s 18 [2.024]
Unfair Contracts Terms Act 1977 [1.019], [5.023]

2017 - 04 - 25

Chapter 01: General Introduction
Chapter 1
General Introduction

2017 - 04 - 25 page 3

The Sale of Goods Act 1957: the Legislative Background
THE SALE OF GOODS ACT 1957: THE LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND
[1.005] References to the Act in the text are references to the Malaysian Sale of Goods Act 1957,
unless otherwise stated.
[1.006] In the United Kingdom, the Sale of Goods Act 1893 (UK) (SOGA 1893) was based on the Bill
drafted by Sir Mackenzie Chalmers in 1887. The SOGA 1893 was amended from time to time but
continued to be the statute governing the sale of goods in the United Kingdom until 1979 when it was
replaced by the Sale of Goods Act 1979. The Sale of Goods Act 1979 continues to be in force subject to
such amendments as have thereafter been made to it.
[1.007] At the time the SOGA 1893 was passed, Britain was a flourishing colonial power. And as the
colonial overlords, the British had no difficulty introducing the UK sale of goods statute in their
colonies. Thus the SOGA 1893 was, with very little modification, introduced as local legislation in,
inter alia, Canada, the States of Australia, South Africa and Hong Kong. In Hong Kong, the statute was
enacted in 1896 as Ordinance No. 4 of 1896 with the short title, the Sale of Goods Ordinance. The
SOGA 1893 came to Malaysia (then the Unfederated Malay States and the Federated Malay States)
through a more circuitous route the Indian Contract Act 1872 and the Indian Sale of Goods Act
1930.
[1.008] The Indian Contract Act 1872 was based on and attempted to codify certain common law
principles of the law of contract and the common law relating to the sale of goods, including the Law
Merchant. The Indian law relating to the sale of goods was originally contained in Chapter VII (ss
76125) of the Indian Contract Act 1872.
[1.009] By 1895, the Federated Malay States had been formed and had its own Legislative Council.
In 1899, the FMS Legislative Council enacted a model statute on contracts. This was the Contract
Enactment 1899 which each of the four states of the FMS was to enact in its own name. The Contract
Enactment 1899 was based on the Indian Contract Act 1872. Like the Indian Contract Act 1872, the
model Contract Enactment 1899, had Chapter VII (ss 76123) headed Sale of Goods.
[1.010] The first legislation governing the sale of goods in Malaysia took the form of an identical
Chapter in identical statutes passed by the members of the Federated Malay States. These were based
on the model statute enacted, as we have seen, by the FMS Legislative Council as the Contracts
Enactment 1899. Three of the statutes were passed in 1899. These were the Perak Contract Enactment
(Enactment 22 of 1899), the Selangor Contract Enactment (Enactment No. 30 of 1899) and the Negri
Sembilan Contract Enactment (Enactment 23 of 1899). Pahang enacted an identical contract statute a
year later as the Pahang Contract Enactment (Enactment No. 1 of 1900). Each of the four statutes had
Chapter VII (ss 7623) headed Sale of Goods. Chapter VII accordingly governed the sale of goods in
each State. That Chapter VII in each statute was based on Chapter VII in the earlier Indian Contract
Act 1872 was expressly acknowledged some 30 years later by His Honourable the Legal Adviser of the
Federated Malay States in his speech moving the Sale of Goods Bill 1932. The Legal Adviser,
addressing the Speaker, said:
Sir, the law relating to the sale of goods is now contained in Part (sic) VII of the Contract
Enactment. That Enactment was copied from India, where it was passed in 1872 ...
From 1899 onwards, the law relating to the sale of goods in the Federated Malay States was Chapter
VII in the Contracts Enactment of each of the Federated Malay States as copied from the Indian
Contract Act 1872.
[1.011] Twenty one years after the passage of the Indian Contract Act 1872, a statute codifying the
common law relating to sale of goods in England was passed as the SOGA 1893. During the 21-year
period, the English common law relating to the sale of goods, which was the basis of Chapter VII of
the Indian Contract Act 1872, had undergone change. The English SOGA 1893 took stock of these
changes by having provisions designed to deal with them. The English statute was manifestly an
improvement over Chapter VII. But another 40 years were to pass before the Indian government
decided that Chapter VII of the Indian Contract Act 1872 was outdated and needed to be replaced. The
decision was referred to the Select Committee of the Indian Legislature. The Select Committee, in its
Report, said:
Whatever merit the simplicity and elementary rules embodied in the Indian Contract Act may
have had, and however sufficient and suitable they may have been for the needs which they
were intended to meet in 1872, the passage of time has revealed defects, the removal of which
has become necessary in order to keep the law abreast of the developments of modern
business relations. The law relating to sale of goods appertains mainly to mercantile
transactions. There can be no doubt that during the last half-century conditions in this country
relating to trade and business have undergone material changes. Methods of business have
largely altered and new relations have arisen between man and man. In dealing with these
relations it has been necessary to give recognition to new principles, and the Indian Courts
have found that a law enacted more than fifty years ago is entirely inadequate to enable them
to deal with these new relations or give effect to the new principles. The result has been that on
various occasions the Courts have had to hold that Chapter VII of the Indian Contract Act is not
exhaustive, and to import therein analogies from the decisions of the English Courts.
The English law relating to the sale of goods which was admittedly the basis of chapter VII of
the Indian Contract Act has itself since 1872 undergone drastic changes and was finally
codified in 1893 by the present Sale of Goods Act (56 and 57 Vict, c 71), which discards many of
the old common law rules upon which Chapter VII of the Indian Act was based, in favour of
provisions more suited to modern conditions or more convenient in actual practice.
[1.012] The Select Committee of the Indian Legislature also considered the SOGA 1893 and came to
the conclusion that it was, but for a few provisions, suitable for India. What the Select Committee had
to say on the English statute is reproduced below:
The provisions of the English Act are far more elaborate and comprehensive than those of
chapter VII of the Indian Contract Act, and in their arrangement the English Act is more logical
and methodical. As we have already observed, it has been revised and brought up to date the
rules of the English Common Law. Moreover, the adoption of the English Act as the basis of the
present Bill will enable the Indian Courts to interpret its provisions in the light of the decisions
of the English Courts.
The Select Committee took the trouble to clarify that the English Act had been modified to suit Indian
conditions by dropping from it, provisions unsuitable to Indian conditions and by retaining
provisions of the Contract Act 1872 where it thought it necessary. The Select Committee said:
In adopting the provisions of the English Act we have not been unmindful of the needs and
exigencies of this country. Wherever it has been found that a rule obtaining in England, such as
that relating to market overt, is not suitable to Indian conditions, the rule has been rejected. We
have, moreover, carefully scrutinized the provisions of the English Act in the light of the
decisions of English Courts since 1893, and where the decisions have shown the provisions of
the English Act to be defective or ambiguous, we have attempted to improve upon them. We
have also retained several of the provisions of the Indian Contract Act which we consider
necessary or useful to meet the special conditions existing in India.
[1.013] As a result of the matters noted above, an entirely new statute, the Indian Sale of Goods Act
1930 was eventually passed as a statute standing alone. Section 65 of the Indian Sale of Goods Act
1930 repealed Chapter VII of the Contract Act 1872. The Act as passed, was based mainly on the UK
SOGA 1893 and modified in the light of subsequent judicial decisions in England and India: Law
Commission of India (LCI), in its 8th Report: Sale of Goods Act 1930 (Ministry of Law, Government
of India, 1958), para 2.
The passage of the Indian Sale of Goods Act 1930 triggered legislative activity on the same subject in
the Federated Malay States. There was introduced in the Federal Council of the Federated Malay
States, the Sale of Goods Bill 1932. In moving the reading of the Bill 1932, the Honourable the Legal
Adviser of the Federated Malay States went out of his way to emphasise that the Bill was a copy of the
Indian Sale of Goods Act 1930. This much emerges from virtually the whole of the Honble the Legal
Advisers speech consisting of the passages from the Report of the Indian Select Committee quoted
above [Federated Malay States, Shorthand Report of the Proceedings of the Federal Council on
Monday, 14 March 1932 in Proceedings of the Federal Council of the Federated Malay States for the
year 1932 (Kuala Lumpur: Federated Malay States Government Printing Office, 1933), pp B8 and B9].
The Bill went through all the readings necessary for it to secure passage through the Council in the
same sitting. It became the Sale of Goods Enactment 1932 (Enactment No. 1 of 1932) of the Federated
Malay States. Section 1 of the Sale of Goods Enactment 1932 provided:
Upon the coming into force of this Enactment Chapter VII of the Contract Enactments, 1899
(Pahang 1990), shall be repealed.
It has to be noted that Chapter VII in the Contracts Enactment of each of the FMS was also repealed.
Thus was Chapter VII in Contracts Enactment of each of the Federated Malay States laid to rest and
replaced by the Indian-derived Sale of Goods Enactment 1932.
[1.014] In the Unfederated Malay States, Johore passed the Sale of Goods Enactment (No. 9 of 1932)
later renumbered Enactment 116. Another Unfederated Malay State which passed a sale of goods
Enactment was Trengganu. It enacted the Sale of Goods Enactment bearing the title Trengganu No. 9
of 1360 (the figure 1360 is the year in the Islamic calendar). Kelantan, Kedah and Perlis seem not to
have enacted any sale of goods legislation at all.
The Sale of Goods Enactment (No. 1 of 1932) of the Federated Malay States was renumbered Chapter
53 of the Laws of the FMS. Chapter 53 was based on the Indian Sale of Goods Act 1930 which was
itself based on the SOGA 1893.
[1.015] In the first quarter of 1957, independence from the British colonial overlord was imminent
(on August 31) and there was clearly a need for a single sale of goods statute to be applicable
throughout the whole country. Accordingly, the first reading of the Bill for such a statute was moved
at the meeting of the Legislative Council on March 1957. The Bill was intituled an Ordinance to
consolidate and extend throughout Malay States the law relating to the sale of goods (25002501,
March 6, 1957). Moving the second reading of the Bill on March 7, 1957, the learned Attorney-General
said the Bill was:
... a consolidating measure. If it is passed, and I see no reason to suppose that it will not be
passed, it will not effect any change whatever in the law of the former Federated Malay States
or in that of Johore and Trengganu because the present Bill is taken word for word from the
existing Sale of Goods Enactments of those States. Whether it would effect any change in law in
Kelantan, Kedah and Perlis is perhaps more difficult to answer. It depends upon whether the
contents of this Bill represent an exact codification of the common law, or whether it
introduces any changes into it. That is a matter of enthralling interest to lawyers, but I feel that
in this Council it would be regarded as somewhat academic. It is quite clear that it is desirable
that throughout the country there should be a uniform law dealing with such a matter as the
sale of goods, and the principles contained in this Bill are principles which have been accepted
not only by the Malay States or certain of them before, but are based upon the statute law
which has been in force in England for some 60 years. They have worked well elsewhere, they
have worked well in the former Federated Malay States and I do not suppose at the moment
that they will not work equally well in Kelantan, Kedah and Perlis. (25272528, 7 March 1957)
Here we have the learned Attorney-General moving a Bill which would introduce a statute that would
cover Kelantan, Kedah and Perlis. This official had all the resources of the soon-to-be-formed
Federation of Malaya (including the legal department) at his disposal. Yet he was unable to ascertain
two matters. The first was whether the three States had, before 1957, their own sale of goods
legislation. The second was whether the Federal statute he was moving would affect their sale of
goods law (whether statutory or otherwise). The disdain with which the Attorney-General dismissed
the question of whether the proposed Bill will effect any changes into the law of Kelantan, Kedah and
Perlis is disturbing. Just as disconcerting is his unctuous assumption that because the principles
embodied in the Bill have worked well in England, elsewhere and in the former Federated Malay
States, they must work equally well in Kelantan, Kedah and Perlis.
The Attorney-General was the only person to speak on the Bill. Thereafter, the Council resolved itself
into a committee and save for one amendment, the Bill was agreed to without any other amendment.
The third reading of the Bill took place immediately after the committee stage. This was the Bill that
went on to become the Sale of Goods (Malay States) Ordinance 1957 (No 1 of 1957). What emerges
very clearly from the learned Attorney-Generals remarks is his perception that the Sale of Goods
(Malay States) Ordinance 1957 was based upon the statute law which has been in force in England
for some 60 years. The statute referred to by the Attorney-General is the SOGA 1893. The learned
Attorney-General, it will be noted, acknowledges no indebtedness to the Indian Sale of Goods Act
1930. That, as we have seen, was acknowledged by the Honourable, the Legal Adviser of the FMS in
moving the Bill that became the Sale of Goods Enactment in 1932.
[1.016] The identity shared by the provisions of the SOGA 1893, the Indian Sale of Goods Act 1930
and the Malaysian Sale of Goods Act 1957 (SOGA) can be seen from the tabular presentation of the
provisions below.
Table Showing Corresponding Sections of the English SOGA 1893, the Indian Sale of Goods Act
1930, and the Malaysian SOGA
English Sale of Goods Act 1893 Sale of Goods Act 1930 (India) Sale of Goods Act 1957 (Malaysia)
64 1(1) 1(1)
62(1) 2(1) & (2) 2
62(4) 2(3) 2
62(I) 2(4) 2
62(1) 2(5) & (6) 2
62(1) 2(7) 2
62(3) 2(8) 2
See s 1(1) of the English Factors Act 1889 2(9) 2
1(1) 2(10) 2
62(1) 2(11), (12), (13) & (14) 2
2(15) 2
61(2) 3 3
1 4 4
5(1) 5(1)
3 5(2) 5(2)
5 6 6
6 7 7
7 8 8
8 9 9
9 10 10
10(1) 11 11
II(I)(b) 12 12
II(I)(a) 13(1) 13(1)
II(I)(c) 13(2) 13(2)
U(3) 13(3) 13(3)
12 14 14
13 15 15
14(1) 16(1) 16(1)(a)
14(2) 16(2) & (4) 16(1)(b) & 16(3)
14(3) 16(3) 16(2)
15 17 17
16 18 18
17 19(1) & (2) 19(1) & (2)
18 (opening paragraph) 19(3) 19(3)
18 Rule 1 20 20
18 Rule 2 21 21
18 Rule 5 23 23
18 Rule 4 24 24
19 25 25
20 26 26
21(1) 27 27
28 28
23 29 29
25 30 30
27 31 31
28 32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
29(1) 36 (1) 36(1)
29(2), (3), (4), & (5) 36(2), (3), (4) & (5) 36(2), (3), (4) & (5)
30(1) & (2) 37(1) & (2) 37(1) & (2)
30(3) 37(3) 37(3)
30(4) 37(4) 37(4)
31 38 38
32(1) & (2) 39(1) & (2) 39(1) & (2)
32(3) 39(3) 39(3)
33 40 40
34 41 41
35 42 42
36 43 43
37 44 44
38 45 45
39 46 46
41 47 47
42 48 48
43 49 49
44 50 50
45 51 51
46 52 52
47 53(1) 53(1)
53(2) new 53(2)
48(1) 54(1) 54(1)
48(3) 54(2) 54(2)
48(2) 54(3) 54(3)
48(4) 54(4) 54(4)
49(1) & (2) 55 55
50(1) 56 56
51(1) 57 57
52 58 58
53(1) 59(1) 59(1)
53(4) 59(2) 59(2)
60 60
54 61(1) 61(1)
49(3) 61(2)(a) 61(2)(a)
61(2)(b) 61(2)(b)
55 62 62
56 63 63
58(1) 64(1) to (5) Nil
64(6) Nil
64A Nil
65(Repealed) Nil
66(1)(a) to (c) Nil
61(3) 66(I)(d) Nil
61(2) 66(I)(e) 64(1)
61(1) 66(2) 64(2)
61(4) 66(3) 64(3)
Acknowledgement: Columns 1 and 2 are derived from Mulla, The Sale of Goods Act and The Indian Partnership Act by Sir
Dinshah Fardunji Mulla, Justice K Kannan (ed) (Haryanan: Lexis Nexis, 10th edn, 2014), pp xxxiii-xxxv.
By a curious oversight, although its title contains the words Malay States, the expression was not
defined in the statute itself. That oversight was corrected by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong with the
Federal Constitution (Modification of Laws) (Ordinances and Proclamations) Order 1958 (LN 332/58)
came into effect on October 14, 1958. The relevant part of the Order is that which amends s 2 of the
Sale of Goods (Malay States) Ordinance 1957 by adding, after the definition insolvent the following:
Malay States means the States of Johore, Kedah, Kelantan, Negri Sembilan, Pahang, Perak,
Perlis, Selangor and Trengganu;
Thus was the meaning of Malay States clarified in relation to the application of the Sale of Goods
(Malay States) Ordinance 1957.
[1.017] Section 1 of the Sale of Goods (Malay States) Ordinance 1957 provided that it shall have
effect within the Malay States only. This part of s 1 merits clarification. At the time of the passage of
the Ordinance, the Malay States did not include Penang and Malacca which then constituted the
Straits Settlements. The learned Attorney-General did address this issue in moving the second
reading of the Bill that became the 1957 Ordinance. He said:
It may be said that if it is desirable that the law should be uniform, why should this Bill be
confined only to the Malay States? The reason for that is in the Settlements, as is provided in
the Civil Law Ordinance we passed last year, the commercial law is based upon the law
prevailing in the United Kingdom and the Sale of Goods is, of course, a branch of the
commercial law. It is not, therefore, necessary to legislate in regards to the Settlements. But the
law, as far as I know, is exactly the same in the Settlements as it is here, for the reason that the
law embodied in this Bill is the same as the law in the United Kingdom.
[1.018] The statute was revised in 1989. Besides changing the word Ordinance into Act the
revision of 1989 made no other change of substance to the SOGA. Thus the Sale of Goods (Malay
States) Ordinance 1957 (No. 1 of 1957) became the Sale of Goods Act 1957 (Act 382) (SOGA).
Consequently, the SOGA as revised in 1989 did not alter the position of Penang and Malacca and the
sale of goods in the two States continued to be subject to English commercial law by virtue of s 5(2) of
the Civil Law Act 1956 (discussed later in this chapter). It was the Sale of Goods (Amendment and
Extension) Act 1990 which came into effect on February 23, 1990 that brought Penang and Malacca
under the umbrella of the SOGA. Before the amendment, s 1(2) read This Act shall apply to the States
of West Malaysia except Malacca and Penang. The amending Act deleted the words except Malacca
and Penang in s 1(2) and thereby extended the SOGA to the whole of West Malaysia.
The judgment in Au Yong Kum Min v Tractors Malaysia Bhd [1997] 5 MLJ 168 was dated May 17, 1997.
By that date, the Sale of Goods Act 1957 (SOGA) had been extended to the States of Penang and
Malacca by the Sale of Goods (Amendment and Extension) Act 1990 with effect from February 23,
1990. In Au Yong Kum Min v Tractors Malaysia Bhd, arising from an agreement made on September
20, 1974 in the State of Malacca, the plaintiff and the defendants were locked in a dispute over
whether the plaintiff had purchased or hired a tractor from the defendants. The dispute between the
parties had to be decided under the sale of goods legislation. Two issues were before the court. The
first was whether the applicable law was the SOGA or its English counterpart. As the agreement was
made in Malacca, under s 5(2) of the Civil Law Act 1956, the SOGA could not apply and the English
legislation had to apply. But this raised a further point: was it the English Sale of Goods Act 1979 or
the English Sale of Goods Act 1893 that applied? Since the agreement was made in 1974, the
legislation that would apply was the English Sale of Goods Act 1893 and not the Sale of Goods Act
1979; the latter had yet to be enacted when the facts of the case occurred. The court also remarked, at
p 178, that the provisions of the SOGA 1957 and the SOGA 1893 are generally in pari materia with
each other.
[1.019] Sabah and Sarawak became part of the Federation of Malaysia in 1963. By that time the Sale
of Goods (Malay States) Ordinance 1957 was already in force. No amendment to the SOGA from 1963
to the present (2016) has extended the SOGA to the States of East Malaysia, that is, to Sabah and
Sarawak. The two States would seem to continue to be subject, as far as the law on the sale of goods is
concerned, to the UK Sale of Goods Act 1979. The latter is a consolidating statute that effectively
consolidates the UK Sale of Goods Act 1893, the UK Misrepresentation Act 1967 and the UK Unfair
Contracts Terms Act 1977. Sabah and Sarawak are excluded from the ambit of the SOGA by s 5(2) of
the Civil Law Act 1956. However, as s 5(2) is incomprehensible without the context provided by s 5(1),
the whole of s 5 is reproduced below:
(1) In all questions or issues which arise or which have to be decided in the States of
Peninsular Malaysia other than Malacca and Penang with respect to the law of
partnerships, corporations, banks and banking, principals and agents, carriers by air, land
and sea, marine insurance, average, life and fire insurance, and with respect to mercantile
law generally, the law to be administered shall be the same as would be administered in
England in the like case at the date of the coming into force of this Act, if such question or
issue had arisen or had to be decided in England, unless in any case other provision is or
shall be made by any written law.
(2) In all questions or issues which arise or which have to be decided in the States of Malacca,
Penang, Sabah and Sarawak with respect to the law concerning any of the matters
referred to in subsection (1), the law to be administered shall be the same as would be
administered in England, in the like case at the corresponding period, if such question or
issue had arisen or had to be decided in England, unless in any case other provision is or
shall be made by any written law.
(Emphasis added)
It is the italicised words in s 5(2) of the Civil Law Act 1956 that seem to make Sabah and Sarawak
subject to the UK Sale of Goods Act 1979. The point was explicitly made by Nallini Pathmanathan J in
Pacific Inter-Link Sdn Bhd v Aikbee Timbers (Sabah) Sdn Bhd [2009] 6 MLJ 673 at 682 as follows:
The substantive dispute and thereby the cause of action arose in Sandakan, Sabah. The Sale of
Goods Act 1957 is, under section 1(2) applicable in the States of Peninsular Malaysia, ie West
Malaysia only. In Sabah and Sarawak, by virtue of section 5(2) of the Civil Law Act 1956 the
applicable law for this dispute pertaining to the sale and purchase of goods is the equivalent
English law at the corresponding time, namely the United Kingdom Sale of Goods Act 1979 ...
Thus, there continues the curious situation in which foreign law applies in two of the States some fifty
years after they became a part of Malaysia.
[1.020] The SOGA sets out the law relating to, inter alia, the sale of goods contract. It does not,
however, replace the law of contract. Indeed, s 3 of the SOGA 1957 expressly provides:
The [provisions of the] Contracts Act 1950, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the
express provisions of this Act shall continue to apply to contracts for the sale of goods.
[1.021] Canada, Australia, Hong Kong and Malaysia were not the only British colonial possessions
(however designated) in which the SOGA 1893 was introduced. As has been noted, the British
imposed the SOGA 1893, with very little modification, in different parts of their colonial empire. Since
the sale of goods statutes in the former British colonial holdings were all derived from the SOGA 1893,
and since there were very few alterations of any moment between them, cases decided under the
SOGA 1893 and its successors are or were, and continue to be, useful guides to the colonial
counterparts when it comes to the interpretation and application the SOGA. Judicial decisions under
the UK statute are not binding on Malaysian courts but the decisions of the superior courts of the UK
continue to be accorded a great deal of respect. So too are decisions of the superior courts in other
common law jurisdictions. Constitutional authority for resorting to the common law may be found in
Art 160(2) which provides that unless the context otherwise requires, the word law as used in the
Federal Constitution:
... includes written law, the common laws in so far as it is in operation in the Federation or any
part thereof, and any custom or usage having the force of law in the Federation or any part
thereof.
Consequently, Malaysian courts often refer to the decisions of the superior courts of the UK and other
former British colonial possessions.

2017 - 04 - 25 page 15

Is the Soga a Codifying Statute or a Code?
The Construction of a Codifying Statute
The construction of a codifying statute
[1.025] As the embodiment of the common law and any pre-existing statutory provision on an issue, the
question that arises is whether a codifying statute is to be construed on the basis of just the language in
which it is cast or whether, when there is any ambiguity, one must first examine the common law as it
existed before the codifying statute was enacted and use that to construe the new statute. The question
also encompasses the issue of whether a codifying statute is meant to restate the existing law or to alter and
amend it.
[1.026] The proper approach to the interpretation of a codifying statute fell to be considered in a case
decided even before the SOGA was passed. The case was The Governor and the Company of the Bank of
England (Appellants) v Vagliano Brothers (Respondents) [1891] AC 107 (usually abbreviated to Bank of
England v Vagliano Bros) which required the construction of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882. In the case
report, at p 138, Lord Bramwell said:
It must be borne in mind that the Bills of Exchange Act is An Act to Codify the Law relating to Bills of
Exchange, not to alter or amend it, ...
In the same case, Lord Halsbury stated unequivocally, that in construing a codifying statute, one is not free
to go outside the four corners of the statute but is limited to the words used in the statute. At p 121, Lord
Halsbury said:
It seems to me that, construing the statute by adding to it words which are neither found therein nor
for which authority could be found in the language of the statute itself, is to sin against one of the
most familiar rules of construction, and I am wholly unable to adopt the view that, where a statute is
expressly said to codify the law, you are at liberty to go outside the code so created, because before the
existence of that code another law prevailed.
(Emphasis added)
Lord Herschell was more expansive. At pp 145146, his Lordship noted that the Bills of Exchange Act 1882
was intended to be a code of law relating to negotiable instruments and then discussed the proper
approach to construing a codifying statute. Lord Herschell said:
The conclusion ... expressed ... (by the Court of Appeal) ... was founded upon an examination of the
state of the law at the time the Bills of Exchange Act was passed. The prior authorities were subjected
by the learned Judges who concurred in this conclusion to an elaborate review, with the result that it
was established to their satisfaction that a bill made payable to a fictitious person or his order was,
as against the acceptor, in effect a bill payable to bearer, only when the acceptor was aware of the
circumstance that the payee was a fictitious person, and further, that his liability in that case
depended upon an application of the law of estoppel. It appeared to those learned Judges that if the
exception was to be further extended, it would rest upon no principle, and that they might well
pause before holding that sect 7, sub-sect 3, of the statute was intended not merely to codify the
existing law, but to alter it and to introduce so remarkable and unintelligible a change.
My Lords, with sincere respect for the learned Judges who have taken this view, I cannot bring
myself to think that this is the proper way to deal with such a statute as the Bills of Exchange Act,
which was intended to be a code of the law relating to negotiable instruments. I think the proper
course is in the first instance to examine the language of the statute and to ask what is its natural
meaning, uninfluenced by any considerations derived from the previous state of the law, and not to
start with inquiring how the law previously stood, and then, assuming that it was probably intended to
leave itunaltered, to see if the words of the enactment will bear an interpretation in conformity with this
view.
(Emphasis added)
If a statute, intended to embody in a code a particular branch of the law, is to be treated in this
fashion, it appears to me that its utility will be almost entirely destroyed, and the very object with
which it was enacted will be frustrated. The purpose of such a statute surely was that on any point
specifically dealt with by it, the law should be ascertained by interpreting the language used instead
of, as before, by roaming over a vast number of authorities in order to discover what the law was,
extracting it by a minute critical examination of the prior decisions, dependent upon a knowledge of
the exact effect even of an obsolete proceeding such as a demurrer to evidence. I am of course far
from asserting that resort may never be had to the previous state of the law for the purpose of aiding
in the construction of the provisions of the code. If, for example, a provision be of doubtful import,
such resort would be perfectly legitimate. Or, again, if in a code of the law of negotiable instruments
words be found which have previously acquired a technical meaning, or been used in a sense other
than their ordinary one, in relation to such instruments, the same interpretation might well be put
upon them in the code. I give these as examples merely; they, of course, do not exhaust the category.
What, however, I am venturing to insist upon is, that the first step taken should be to interpret the
language of the statute, and that an appeal to earlier decisions can only be justified on some special
ground.
[1.027] Although holding that a codifying statute should be construed according to the language in which
it is framed, Lord Herschell does concede that there may be occasions when the previous law may be
resorted to in deciding the meaning of a provision in a codifying statute. One such occasion would be where
a provision is of doubtful import. Another may be where an expression has acquired a technical meaning
under the old laws.

2017 - 04 - 25 page 17

Is the Soga a Codifying Statute or a Code?
A Code or a Codifying Statute?
A code or a codifying statute?
[1.028] Is the SOGA more than a codifying statute in being a code in that it is an exhaustive statute
on the law relating to the sale of goods in Malaysia? Until the passage of the SOGA 1893, the law
relating to the sale of goods in Britain was to be found in the common law and there was no statute
on this subject. In the Federated Malay States, the law relating to sale of goods was to be found in
Chapter VII of the Contract Enactment, copied from Chapter VII of the Indian Contract Act 1872 which
was itself based on the common law. The passage of the SOGA 1893 was followed some 37 years later
by the Indian Sale of Goods Act 1930) and the Sale of Goods Enactment 1932 in the Federated Malay
States (FMS SOGE 1932). The Indian Sale of Goods Act 1930 replicated the SOGA 1893 with two major
differences. The first was that the Indian statute attempted to remedy the ambiguities and other
problems thrown up by the English Courts as they worked with the SOGA 1893. The other was that
the Indian statute rejected provisions of the English statute that had no application in India and
added others to deal with specifically Indian conditions. The Sale of Goods Enactment 1932 of the FMS
(which later became the Sale of Goods Ordinance and the SOGA) just copied its precursor, the Indian
Sale of Goods Act 1930. Thus the English SOGA 1893 was a statute that codified the whole of the
common law on a particular subject and was thus a codifying statute. Since the Indian Sale of Goods
Act 1930 and the FMS Sale of Goods Enactment 1932 (later the SOGA) are, but for minor differences,
replicas of the SOGA 1893, they are clearly codifying statutes.
[1.029] It has to be noted that a codifying statute is not necessarily a code. A code has been defined
as a statute that codifies the whole of the existing law on a particular subject and includes both
statutory and common law: Craies on Statute Law, 7th edn, p 59. But is the SOGA itself a code, that is,
a statute in containing all the law on the sale of goods in Malaysia? The short answer to this question
is provided by sub-sections of s 64 of the Act itself, as quoted below:
(1) Nothing in this Act shall affect or be deemed to affect any rule of law, not inconsistent
with this Act.
(2) The rules in bankruptcy relating to contracts for the sale of goods shall continue to apply
thereto notwithstanding anything contained in this Act.
The word law in the expression rule of law quoted in s 64(1) is defined in Art 160(2) of the Federal
Constitution of Malaysia to include a written law, the common law in so far as it is in operation in the
Federation or any part thereof, and any custom or usage having the force of law in the Federation or
any part thereof. Section 64(1) thus provides that the rules of the common law (including the Law
Merchant) shall continue to apply. The provision reveals that the SOGA is meant to exist alongside
the common law except in so far as the common law is altered by the SOGA. If the SOGA has to work
alongside the common law, it is not meant to be a complete or self-contained code containing all the
law on the sale of goods in Malaysia. It is not, therefore, a code.

2017 - 04 - 25 page 18

The Law of Contract and Soga
THE LAW OF CONTRACT AND SOGA
[1.030] The SOGA applies to goods or chattels personal as defined in s 2(1) of the Act itself. The
statutory definition of goods will be discussed in Chapter 2. As we shall see, the SOGA does not
apply to land, fixtures, things in action and money.
[1.031] The law of contract in Malaysia is largely statutory in the form of the Contracts Act 1950.
However, courts do refer to the common law when confronted by a lacuna in the Contracts Act
1950. From the common law in general and the law of contract in particular, the SOGA carves out
and enacts the law relating to the sale of goods. But, as a codifying statute, the SOGA does not
abrogate the common law rules that make up the law of contract although it does recognise that
some of its provisions may be inconsistent with those of the Contracts Act 1950. This emerges
from s 3 of the Act enacting that The (provisions of) the Contracts Act 1950, in so far as they are
not inconsistent with the express provisions of this Act shall continue to apply to contracts for the
sale of goods. Section 3 thus provides for the continued application of the law of contract (in the
form of the Contracts Act 1950) to contracts for the sale of goods. It is submitted that the rules
relating to the law of principal and agent, and the effect of fraud, misrepresentation, duress or
coercion, mistake, or other invalidating cause contained in the Contracts Act 1950 have to
continue to apply to contracts for the sale of goods because, without them, the SOGA could not
complete a contract for the sale of goods. Without the Contracts Act 1950, SOGA could not operate.

2017 - 04 - 25 page 19

Contracting Out of the Sale of Goods Act 1957
CONTRACTING OUT OF THE SALE OF GOODS ACT 1957
[1.032] In Ashington Piggeries Ltd & Anor v Christopher Hill Ltd [1972] AC 441 at 501 Lord Diplock
explained that the SOGA 1893 was intended to codify the common law rules relating to the sale of goods as
they stood at 1889. The SOGA 1893 expounds just one aspect of the law of contract that relating to the
sale of goods. The statute was not meant to and did not seek to codify the general law of contract. It
assumed the existence as a basic principle of the English law of contract that, subject to any limitations
imposed by statute or by common law rules of public policy, parties to contracts have freedom of choice
not only as to what each will mutually promise to do but also as to what each is willing to accept as the
consequences of the performance or non-performance of those promises so far as those consequences
affect any other party to the contract (at p 501). In other words, the parties to a sale of goods contract are
free, if they so decide, to contract out of the terms of the SOGA 1893. This is, of course, consistent with the
freedom of contract theory which prevailed at the time that Lord Diplock was writing. Lord Diplock says,
The paramountcy of this freedom of choice as to promises made in contracts for the sale of goods is
acknowledged by section 55 of the Act. Section 55 of the SOGA 1893 is reproduced as s 62 of the Act (see
below).
[1.033] If parties are free to contract out of the provisions of the SOGA, what is the purpose, if any, of the
statute? Lord Diplock has the answer: the provisions of the statute are not meant to apply when the parties
have expressly provided for the terms of their sale of goods transaction. To put it differently, the provisions
of the statute apply only where the parties have not specifically agreed on the terms of the contract. This is
how Lord Diplock puts it:
The provisions of the Act are in the main confined to statements of what promises are to be implied
on the part of the buyer and the seller in respect of matters upon which the contract is silent, and to
statements of the consequences of performance or non-performance of promises, whether expressed
or implied, where the contract does not state what those consequences are to be (at 501).
The foregoing passage from Lord Diplock provides judicial support for the view that it is possible for
parties to a contract for the sale of goods to contract out of the provisions of the statute.
[1.034] Generally, contracting out of the provisions of a statute could be effected either by a clause in a
contract excluding or limiting the right, duty or obligation, express or implied, that the statute inserts into a
contract. Such a clause is termed an exemption clause. Exemption clauses come in two forms: exclusion
(excluding) clauses and limiting clauses. An exclusion clause seeks to exclude liability for breach of
contract or other duty completely. A limiting clause differs from an exclusion clause in that it does not
exclude liability entirely; it merely limits the liability of a party for breach of a contract or for a tort to a
specified monetary sum.
[1.035] The SOGA itself has a provision authorising the use of exemption clauses. This is s 62 which is a
reproduction of s 55 of the SOGA 1893. The provision reads:
62. Exclusion of implied terms and conditions
Where any right, duty or liability would arise under a contract of sale by implication of law, it may
be negatived or varied by express agreement or by the course of dealing between the parties, or by
usage, if the usage is such as to bind both parties to the contract.
We turn now to the use of exemption clauses in contracts for the sale of goods.
[1.036] Malaysia has no laws regulating the use of exemption clauses and the theory of the freedom of
contract prevails. The freedom of contract theory holds that contracts are made by mutual agreement and
that a contract is voluntarily entered into by the parties unhampered by government, or legislative
controls. A concomitant of the foregoing was the courts adopting the position that it was their job to
enforce contracts that they deemed to be freely entered into by consenting adults in possession of their
faculties. In its more extreme forms, the theory of the freedom of contract held that the parties were free to
agree on any terms they liked unrestricted by any notion of unconscionability (it has to be clarified that
unconscionability was distinguished from illegality). The freedom of contract theory coupled with the duty
that the courts arrogated onto themselves to enforce contracts freely made by consenting parties found
expression in the tag, the sanctity of contract. The sanctity of contract had the courts giving effect to
contracts regardless of how lop-sided their terms were in favoring one party over the other.
[1.037] The theory of the freedom of contract coupled with the sanctity of contract ignored some basic
facts. The first is that the market has never been free (as evidenced by monopolies, cartels and other
capitalistic controls) of state intervention. The second is that generally, the parties to a contract do not
have, as they rarely ever had, equality of bargaining power or the freedom to choose the party with whom
they contract. The freedom of contract is a legal fiction. This, however, has not prevented the courts from
pontificating in favour of the freedom of contract and that the sanctity of contract prevails.
[1.038] Be that as it may, over time, the common law did come up with rules to regulate the use of
exemption clauses. These included:
(1) the rule that if an exemption clause was not incorporated into (i.e. was not made a part of) a
contract it was unenforceable;
(2) the rule that the exemption clause must cover exactly the liability it sought to avoid.
The principle on which the first rule rests is simplicity itself. If an exemption clause (by definition a clause
in a contract) is not incorporated into a contract it cannot be effective or enforceable. The second rule has
its basis in the realisation that an exemption clause is inserted into a contract by the party in the stronger
bargaining position. And that it is drafted by the stronger partys lawyers at their leisure. If, with all these
advantages, the party relying on the exemption clause cannot define exactly the risk or liability that he is
seeking to avoid, he may not, in fairness, seek to enforce it.
[1.039] Further, the courts are aware that the situation has to be dire for the legislature to intervene in
the market place to confer a right or impose a duty or liability upon a contracting party. The courts are also
aware that big businesses can have its friends in the legislature carve out legislative exceptions to such
rights, duties or liabilities. Consequently, the courts scrutinise closely clauses expressly excluding rights,
duties or liabilities. The courts are equally wary of claims that a statutory right, duty or liability is excluded
by a course of dealings or by usage as provided in s 62 of the Act.
[1.040] To date, the LexisNexis database, the CLJ database and the Westlaw database contain not a single
case involving s 62 of the Act itself. However, an English case that is illustrative of the judicial attitude to
clauses/agreements excluding statutory conditions is Andrews Brothers (Bournemouth) Ltd v Singer & Co
Ltd [1934] 1 KB 17; [1933] All ER Rep 479 . In that case, a contract for the purchase of a new car provided
that all cars sold were subject to the term that all conditions warranties and liabilities implied by statute,
common law or otherwise are excluded. It was held that the obligation to provide a new car was an
express and not an implied term.

2017 - 04 - 25

Chapter 02: The Contract for the Sale of Goods
The Definition of Goods
THE DEFINITION OF GOODS
[2.001] The SOGA applies to goods as defined in s 2. The statutory definition in s 2 of the Act
draws upon several terms and concepts from the law of property generally. The terms and
concepts are explained at appropriate points in the discussion of the statutory definition of
goods that follows.

2017 - 04 - 25

The Definition of Goods
THE DEFINITION OF GOODS
[2.001] The SOGA applies to goods as defined in s 2. The statutory definition in s 2 of the Act
draws upon several terms and concepts from the law of property generally. The terms and
concepts are explained at appropriate points in the discussion of the statutory definition of
goods that follows.

2017 - 04 - 25

Goods as Defined in Soga
Actionable Claims
Actionable claims
[2.004] The statutory definition of goods excludes actionable claims or things in action. Things in
action are intangible property such as rights under a contract and intellectual property. Actionable claims
are so designated because legal action is required to enforce rights in such things or choses. Sometimes,
actionable claims are referred to as choses in action. Things in action, as we have seen, normally include
rights under a contract, and copyright. To this list may be added patents, trademarks, insurance policies,
and bills of lading: Public Finance Bhd v Scotch Leasing Sdn Bhd (Perwira Habib Bank Malaysia)
(Intervener) [1996] 2 AMR 2261; [1996] 2 MLJ 369 at 379, FC , per Peh Swee Chin FCJ.

2017 - 04 - 25 page 27

Land
Land
[2.011] Clearly, by limiting goods to moveable property the definition of goods excludes
land. In Lau Tek Sen @ Lau Beng Chong & v SK Song [1995] MLJU 302 at 10-1 , Mohd Ghazali JC
remarked The Sale of Goods Act is of course not applicable to land transactions and the word
goods do(es) not encompass real property...
The definition of goods in SOGA makes this clear.

2017 - 04 - 25 page 28

Fixtures or Things Fixed or Attached to or Forming Part of Land
Fixtures or things fixed or attached to or forming part of land
[2.012] Things attached to or forming part of the land which are agreed to be severed before
sale or under the contract of sale are included in the definition of goods in s 2. Things attached
to or forming part of the land are termed fixtures. Such things are instanced by buildings,
houses, trees and fences. A fixture, as we have seen, is a chattel that is fixed or attached to land
and has become a part of the land. While some fixtures are permanently attached to the land,
others are not and can be separated from the land. When things are separated from land, they
become moveable property or chattels. That is why s 2 prescribes that it is only those fixtures that
can be and are agreed to be detached before sale or under the contract of sale are goods.
[2.013] Then there are chattels that become fixtures. When does a chattel or an item of
moveable property become a fixture? Whether a chattel can be considered a fixture or goods
seems to depend on the degree and purpose of its annexation to the land. If the annexation is not
permanent and would enhance its use as a chattel, it remains a chattel. If, however, its
attachment to the land is permanent and would enhance the use of the land, then, it becomes a
fixture. An air-conditioner is a chattel. An air-conditioning unit that is installed into a window of a
building is moveable and its attachment to the building (itself a fixture), is to enhance its use as a
chattel (in that it cannot be used without being installed). Its installation or attachment is to
enable it to be used and the attachment is temporary. Such an air-conditioner does not become a
fixture. The case summarised next is illustrative.
In Penta Continental Land Investment Co Ltd v Chung Kwok Restaurant Ltd & Anor (1967) DCLR 22
, three air conditioners were not attached to the building in which the defendant was located.
Instead, the machines were bolted or screwed to frames which themselves were not attached to
the building but merely rested by their own weight or the weight of the machines upon them on
the floor of a garage adjacent to the restaurant. The machines were connected by power wires to
the electrical supply and by pipes to ducts installed in the building. These ducts distributed the
cold air produced by the machines to the building. These pipes were welded to the machines and
could be separated from the machines only by cutting with a welding torch. One of the issues for
decision was whether the air conditioners were fixtures or moveable property or chattels. It was
held that the air conditioners being complete in themselves as machines were not fixtures but
remained chattels. They did not lose their character as chattels in spite of the electrical wires
connecting them to the power supply or the pipes that connected them to the ducts. They were,
throughout, detachable from the land on which they were sitting.
The air-conditioner in the case above may be contrasted to a massive air-conditioning plant
housed in a specially constructed building to cool down an adjacent factory building. The latter
would be permanently fixed to the ground and could not be removed without damaging the
building. It would be a fixture.
2017 - 04 - 25 page 29

"Growing Crops, Grass and Things Attached to or Forming Part of the Land Which Are Agreed to Be Severed Before Sale or Under the
Contract of Sale"
Growing crops, grass and things attached to or forming part of the land which are agreed to be
severed before sale or under the contract of sale
[2.014] In the definition of goods, the words growing crops, grass and things attached to or forming part
of the land which are agreed to be severed before sale or under the contract of sale refer to what may be
described as produce of the land. In relation to the produce of the land, the common law draws a distinction
between fructus naturales, that is, the natural or spontaneous growth of the soil, such as grass, timber and
fruits on trees which were regarded at common law as part of the soil, and fructus industriales, fruits or
crops produced annually, by labour expended in a given year in sowing, reaping, planting and gathering, for
example, corn and potatoes: Benjamins Sale of Goods (7th edn, 2006) at para 1-093. At one time, the
distinction was important because fructus naturales were regarded, until they were severed from the soil, as
part of the soil and an agreement conferring any right or interest in them upon a buyer before severance
was treated as a contract for sale of an interest in land: Saunders (Inspector of Taxes) v Pilcher [1949] 2 All
ER 1097 . By contrast, growing crops, fructus industriales, were treated as chattel and not as a part of land or
an interest in land: Benjamins Sale of Goods (9th edn, 2014) at para 1-093.
[2.015] In Saunders (Inspector of Taxes) v Pilcher [1949] 2 All ER 1097 , the taxpayer sold a cherry
orchard, for 5,500. The sale was expressed as inclusive of this years fruit crop. The crop of cherries was
almost ready for picking. If the cherries were fructus naturales, they would be part of the land and there
would be no contract for the sale of goods. On the other hand, if the cherries were fructus industriales the
contract would be a contract for the sale of goods. The Court of Appeal had to decide the issue. The court
held that the cherries growing on trees were fructus naturales and not fructus industriales, and, therefore,
formed part of the land. There was no contract for the sale of goods.
[2.016] In Marshall v Green (1875) 1 CPD 35 , under an oral agreement trees growing on the land were
sold as timber. The trees were to be cut down by the buyer and removed as soon as possible. Was this a
contract that gave an interest in land or a contract for the sale of goods? It was held that whether the
crops/plants are fructus naturales or fructus industriales depends not only on the type of plant, but on the
intention of the parties. In this case there was no intention to give an interest in the land, and the trees were
to be cut down immediately. The sale was a sale of goods. It has to be noted, however, that together with
growing crops and grass, those fixtures which are agreed to be severed before sale or under the contract of
sale from the land are goods for purposes of the SOGA. Thus, a grove of trees would be fixtures while they
are growing on the land. If the owner agrees to sell the trees so that they may be cut and removed, the
resulting timber will be goods because the trees were fixtures which are agreed to be severed before sale
or under the contract of sale: Marshall v Green (1875) 1 CPD 35 .
[2.017] In the Australian case of Amco Enterprise Pty Ltd v Wade [1968] Qd R 445 the Queensland Supreme
Court held that a contract allowing for a contractor to remove from a river bed all gravel, sand and stone for
use in construction, to be a contract for sale of goods. The decision may be compared to that in Morgan v
Russell & Sons [1909] 1 KB 357 , in which it was held that cinders and puddle slag (industrial waste) had
become one with and were inseparable from the soil and a contract for their removal was not a contract for
the sale of goods.

2017 - 04 - 25 page 30

Works and Materials
Works and materials
[2.018] The SOGA applies to contracts for the sale of goods but does not cover what are known as
contracts for work and materials. In a contract for the sale of goods, the subject matter is the goods which
the vendor agrees to sell and the purchaser agrees to buy. A contract for work and materials, however, is a
contract for the supply of goods and services. The distinction between the two can be difficult to
comprehend as is illustrated by Lee v Griffin [18611873] All ER Rep 191 and Robinson v Graves [1935] 1
KB 579 .
[2.019] In Lee v Griffin [18611873] All ER Rep 191 , a dentist had made and supplied two sets of dentures
to a patient. When the patient did not pay, the dentist sued. It was held that a contract for the making of
two sets of false teeth was a contract for the sale of goods. Where the contract is such that a chattel is
ultimately to be delivered ... the cause of action is goods sold and delivered.
[2.020] In Robinson v Graves [1935] 1 KB 579, CA , the defendant hired the plaintiff to paint a portrait.
The defendant later repudiated the contract. When sued, the defendant argued that the contract was a sale
of goods contract and as it was not in writing, it could not be enforced (the sale of goods legislation then in
force required contracts for the sale of goods to be in writing; this requirement was subsequently
repealed). The Court of Appeal ruled that the contract was not one for the sale of goods. Rather, it was one
for works and materials and the plaintiff could recover. Greer LJ said at pp 587588:
If you find, as they did in Lee v Griffin, that the substance of the contract was the production of
something to be sold by the dentist to the dentists customer, then that is a sale of goods. But if the
substance of the contract, on the other hand, is that skill and labour have to be exercised for the
production of the article and that it is only ancillary to that that there will pass from the artist to his
client or customer some material in addition to the skill involved in the production of the portrait,
that does not make any difference to the result, because the substance of the contract is the skill and
experience of the artist in producing the picture.
The test propounded by Lord Greer in the above passage involves the assessment of the relative
importance in a contract, of goods, and the skill and labour involved in their production. If the skill and
labour involved or the performance of service is the primary purpose of the contract and the finished
article is ancillary to that purpose, then the contract is one for work and materials and the SOGA does not
apply. On the other hand, if the finished article is the dominant element in the contract, the contract is a
sale of goods contract subject to the SOGA.
[2.021] In Canada Bank Note Engraving & Printing Company v The Toronto Railway Company (1895) 39
Empire Digest 368 , the plaintiff supplied the defendant with printed forms of debentures of special design.
The design was supplied by the defendants but the paper was supplied by the plaintiffs. The question was
whether the contract was for the sale of goods or one for work and materials. Following Lee v Griffin
[18611873] All ER Rep 191 , that what the contract ultimately required was that a chattel be delivered by
the plaintiffs to the defendants, this was a contract for the sale of goods.
[2.022] In Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1166 v Chubb Singapore Pte Ltd [1999] 3 SLR 540 ,
GP Selvam J defined a contract for work and materials at p 563:
A contract for work and materials is a contract the subject matter of which is the performance of
services, even though it incidentally includes the sale or supply of some goods. Performance of work
or services is the primary contract. Because neither work nor services are goods, such contracts,
in general, are outside the ambit of Sale of Goods Act and the goods part of Supply of Goods and
Services Act. Sometimes it can be a hybrid contract comprising the elements of both. For example,
in Hyundai Heavy Industries Co Ltd v Papadopoulos [1980] 2 All ER 29; [1980] 1 WLR 1129 a
shipbuilding contract was considered as a contract of sale of goods and at the same time a building
contract. It was a contract for sale of goods because the end-product was a chattel. It is well accepted
that a contract for the construction or renovation of a land structure is a contract for work and
materials and not sale or supply of goods. In such a scenario property in things passes to the buyer
not by delivery or installation but by accession when the thing inseparably merges into the building.
In such a contract the end-product is not a chattel but a permanent structure and therefore the
material becomes part of the immovable property.
The recognition of a hybrid contract in this judgment might well be a harbinger of things to come.

2017 - 04 - 25

Services
Services
[2.023] The definition of goods in s 2 of the Act does not mention services. As a result, services
are not goods and are not covered by the SOGA. Thus, contracts of carriage whether by road as in
a bus or taxi, or by train or by air are not covered by the SOGA. Similarly, the services of a lawyer,
doctor or engineer are not subject to the provisions of the SOGA.

2017 - 04 - 25

Services
Services
[2.023] The definition of goods in s 2 of the Act does not mention services. As a result, services
are not goods and are not covered by the SOGA. Thus, contracts of carriage whether by road as in
a bus or taxi, or by train or by air are not covered by the SOGA. Similarly, the services of a lawyer,
doctor or engineer are not subject to the provisions of the SOGA.

2017 - 04 - 25 page 34

The Contract of the Sale of Goods
Elements of a Contract of Sale of Goods
"Sale"
Sale
[2.028] Section 2(1) defines a sale as including a bargain as well as a sale and delivery. This raises the
question of what is a bargain and how it differs from a sale and delivery.
[2.029] The common law used to distinguish between goods bargained and sold and goods sold and
delivered. Where the parties have negotiated a sale or struck a deal but the seller has not agreed to deliver
the goods, there is a bargain but no agreement as to delivery. In other words, there is a bargain and a
sale. If delivery is not specified as a condition precedent for payment of the price, it is not recoverable in
advance of delivery. For a sale and delivery, a bargain had been struck and the delivery of the goods is
part of the consideration for the price or is a condition precedent for its payment. In such a situation, a
seller who has not delivered cannot recover the price from the buyer, although he may be entitled to
damages for breach of the contract.
[2.030] In Salbiah & Anor v Nanyang Insurance Co [1966] 2 MLJ 16 at 19 , Gill J cited Halsburys Laws of
England (3rd edn), Vol 34 starting at p 19, as follows:
Sale includes a bargain and sale as well as a sale and delivery ... An agreement to sell, or, as it is often
called, an executory contract of sale, is a contract pure and simple, whereas a sale, or, as it is called
for distinction, an executed contract of sale, is a contract plus a conveyance.
[2.031] A sale ... is an executed contract of sale plus a conveyance, per McCardie J in Colley v Overseas
Exporters (1919) Ltd [1921] All ER Rep 596 at 599 . A sale, in short, is sale and delivery.
[2.032] In Chin Wooi Keat v Isberg Corp Sdn Bhd (in receivership) & Anor [2014] 1 AMR 831; [2014] 10
MLJ 1 , the plaintiff had entered into a lease agreement to lease certain machinery to the first defendant for
a period of 24 months at a monthly rental of RM10,000. The receiver and manager (the second defendant),
who was appointed over the first defendant, took the position that the machinery was an asset belonging to
the first defendant. Despite being notified of the plaintiffs (ownership) rights to the machinery, the second
defendant proceeded to arrange for the sale of the machinery. The plaintiff submitted that the second
defendant had, by arranging the sale, committed conversion of the machinery. One of the issues for
decision was whether the sale arranged was a bargain and sale or a sale and delivery. Since it was not in
dispute that the proposed sale was aborted and the machinery never delivered to the potential buyer
pursuant to the agreement to sell, it was a bargain and sale. In order to constitute conversion the law
requires that there must have been delivery of the machinery to the purchaser. A mere bargain and sale
without delivery is not conversion. The plaintiff has not lost the machinery as it has not been irreversibly
converted by the sale and was, by the date of the trial, in his possession. It may be noted that the plaintiff
succeeded on a further claim of conversion in the same case.

2017 - 04 - 25

Elements of a Contract of Sale of Goods
Transfer of Property in the Goods
Transfer of property in the goods
[2.033] The purpose of a contract for the sale of goods is to transfer the property in the goods from the
seller to the buyer for a price. The word property in s 4(1) refers to the ownership of the goods. Thus, the
transfer of property is the transfer of the ownership of goods from the seller to the buyer. In Lian Lee
Motor Sdn Bhd v Azizuddin bin Khairudin [2001] 1 AMR 630; [2001] 1 CLJ 768 , it was clarified that:
The transfer of property stated in s 4(1) of the Sale of Goods Act 1957 (the Act) constitutes the
essence of a contract of sale and the seller who does not so transfer the property breaks the basic duty
created by the contract and there is a total failure of consideration.

2017 - 04 - 25

Security Transactions
Mortgage
Mortgage
[2.036] A mortgage is a money lending transaction in which the borrower is known as the
mortgagor and the lender, as the mortgagee. A mortgage is a security for the loan. The security or
mortgage takes the form of the borrowers property. To provide the security, the mortgagor
transfers his interest in the goods (but not possession of the goods) to the mortgagee. That is to say
the mortgagor retains possession. The transfer of interest usually involves the execution of a
document acknowledging the loan and the mortgagees rights against the goods in the event of a
default. If the mortgagor fails to repay the loan, the mortgagee may seize and sell the mortgaged
goods to recover the amount due to him.

2017 - 04 - 25

Mortgage
Mortgage
[2.036] A mortgage is a money lending transaction in which the borrower is known as the
mortgagor and the lender, as the mortgagee. A mortgage is a security for the loan. The security or
mortgage takes the form of the borrowers property. To provide the security, the mortgagor
transfers his interest in the goods (but not possession of the goods) to the mortgagee. That is to say
the mortgagor retains possession. The transfer of interest usually involves the execution of a
document acknowledging the loan and the mortgagees rights against the goods in the event of a
default. If the mortgagor fails to repay the loan, the mortgagee may seize and sell the mortgaged
goods to recover the amount due to him.

2017 - 04 - 25 page 37

Lease
Lease
[2.042] Where goods are leased, the property in the goods remains in the owner who grants
possession, and use of the goods is for the lessee for a fixed or indeterminate period for an agreed
fixed or periodic payment. The owner of the goods is called the lessor and the party to whom the
goods are leased, the lessee. In C Melchers & Co v Kejuruteraan Faun Yee Sdn Bhd [1984] 2 MLJ 337
, the defendant sold 10 units of a machine to Credit Leasing Sdn Bhd which leased the machines to
the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that there was an express or implied term in the agreement
between itself and the defendant that the defendant would supply to the plaintiff machines of
merchantable quality and that the machines supplied were not of merchantable quality and did
not function satisfactorily from the outset. The Sessions Court awarded damages to the plaintiff.
On appeal, the High Court overturned the award. The High Court held that the contract between
the plaintiff and the defendant was not one of sale and purchase but a lease. Since the contract
was not one of sale and purchase, the Sale of Goods Act did not apply and no condition of
merchantable quality could be implied into it.

2017 - 04 - 25

A Money Consideration Called the Price
A money consideration called the price
[2.043] The seller of goods expects to be paid for them and the buyer expects to become their
owner and to possess them lawfully. Section 4(1) specifically provides that the transfer of
property in the goods must be for a price. Price is defined in s 2 to mean the money
consideration for a sale of goods. The property in the goods must be transferred for a price or a
monetary consideration paid for the goods. As in a contract for services and land, the money need
not be paid at the time of the contract so long as the buyer of goods promises to pay the seller
some money.

Soga

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Soga

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

2017

Sale of Goods Law in Malaysia

2016 Thomson Reuters Malaysia Sdn Bhd

Sale of Goods Law in Malaysia

Sale of Goods Law

Abdul Majid bin Nabi Baksh

BA (Hons), MA (Malaya), PhD (Toledo)

LLB (Hons), LLM (London), PhD (Dundee)

2016 Thomson Reuters Malaysia Sdn Bhd

Sale of Goods Law in Malaysia

Abdul Majid bin Nabi Baksh and Krishnan Arjunan

Cover design by Edward Goh

Printed by Print Assist (1901555-V)

2016 Thomson Reuters Malaysia Sdn Bhd

Sale of Goods Law in Malaysia

Abdul Majid bin Nabi Baksh

2016 Thomson Reuters Malaysia Sdn Bhd

Sale of Goods Law in Malaysia

About the Authors

2016 Thomson Reuters Malaysia Sdn Bhd

Sale of Goods Law in Malaysia

Condition Implied in a Sale by Sample under s 17 124

2016 Thomson Reuters Malaysia Sdn Bhd

Sale of Goods Law in Malaysia

Abbott & Co v Wolsey [1895] 2 QB 97 [6.089]

ACCC v Bytecard Pty Limited [2006] ATPR 42-091 [6.110]

Ajello v Worsley [18951899] All ER Rep 1222 [2.069]

Albazero, The [1977] AC 774 [9.019]

AM Bank (M) Bhd v Ramesh Kullan (unreported) [8.053]

Amco Enterprise Pty Ltd v Wade [1968] Qd R 445 [2.017]

Anderson v Ryan [1967] IR 34 [2.063]

Angara Maritime Limited v Oceanconnect UK Limited, Oceanconnect.Com.Inc [2010]

Ant Jurgens Margarinefabrieken v Louis Dreyfus & Co [1914] 3 KB 40 [7.023]

Attorney General v Rising Sun Trading [1972] HKLR 423 [5.116]

B (A Child), Re [2008] UKHL 35 [9.084]

Baldry v Marshall [1925] 1 KB 260 [3.041], [3.079]

Bank of New South Wales v Palmer [1970] 2 NSWR 532 [5.123]

Barber v NWS Bank Plc [1996] 1 WLR 641 [8.027]

Barclays Bank plc v OBrien (1994) 26 HLR 75 [5.094]

Battley v Faulkner [18141823] All ER Rep 409 [8.033]

Beale v Taylor [1967] 3 All ER 253, CA [3.013], [3.015]

Behnke v Bede Shipping Co Ltd [1927] 1 KB 649 [8.036], [8.040]

Behrend & Co v Produce Brokers Co [1920] 3 KB 530 [6.050]

Benaim & Co v Debono [1924] AC 514 [9.006]

Biggin & Co Ltd v Permanite Ltd [1951] 2 All ER 191 [8.047]

Binet, The [1966] 2 Lloyds Rep 419 [7.025]

Blomley v Ryan (1956) 99 CLR 362 [9.064]

Bolivinter Oil SA v Chase Manhattan NA [1984] 1 Lloyds Rep 251 [9.060]

Booth SS Co Ltd v Cargo Fleet Iron Co Ltd [1916] 2 KB 570 [7.018]

Bragg v Villanova (1923) 40 TLR 154 [6.065]

Braithwaite v Foreign Herdwood Co [1905] 2 KB 543 [7.029]

Bristol Tramways, etc., Carriage Co v Fiat Motors [1910] 2 KB 831 [3.073]

British Motor Trade Association v Gilbert [1951] 2 All ER 641 [8.019]

Bulsing Ltd v Joon Seng & Co [1972] 2 MLJ 43 [7.054]

Bunge Corp v Tradax SA [1981] 2 All ER 513, QBD [9.026], [9.027]

Bunge Corp v Tradax SA [1981] 1 WLR 711, HL [2.110]

Calton v Bragg (1812) 15 East 223 [8.044]

Carlos Soto Sau, Axa Securos Generales Sa De Seguros Y Reaseguros v AP Mller-

Carlowitz & Co v The Sun Shing Firm (19051906) 1 HKLR 51 [3.075]

CG Berbatis Holdings Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

Chan Juen v Yu Fook Shung [1987] 3 HKC 539 [2.003]

Charter v Sullivan [1957] 2 QB 117 [7.051]

Cheah Swee Hock v Public Prosecutor [1961] MLJ 183 [5.020]

Cochrane v Moore (1890) 25 QBD 57 [2.049]