ANTARA ELEKTRIK SDN BHD v BELL & ORDER BHD [2002] 3 MLJ 321

ANTARA ELEKTRIK SDN BHD v BELL & ORDER BHD
[2002] 3 MLJ 321
GUAMAN SIVIL NO S6–22–666 OF 2000
HIGH COURT (KUALA LUMPUR)
DECIDED-DATE-1: 4 APRIL 2002
AZMEL J
CATCHWORDS:
Contract – Building contract – Claim for work done – Term that sub-contractor would be paid in accordance with the PAM form of payment – Whether sub-contractor may be paid according to a different form of payment

Contract – Variation – Written agreement – Whether variation of a written agreement to be in writing – Whether a written agreement may be varied orally

HEADNOTES:
The plaintiff was appointed subcontractor by the defendant to carry out certain works for a construction project. The defendant was appointed by the main contractor — Concrete Construction Group (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd (‘CCG’). The plaintiff’s claim against the defendant was in respect of the balance due for work done. The contract between the plaintiff and defendant was based on a letter dated 19 July 1995. Clause 5.2 of the said letter clearly stipulated that the terms of payment would be in accordance with the PAM form of payment (‘PAM form’). The only issue before the High Court was whether the plaintiff should be paid according to the PAM form or the CCG Special Conditions for Subcontractors form (‘the CCG form’). Payment according to the PAM form entitled the plaintiff to be paid within 14 days of the receipt by the contractor of the architect’s certificate. However, payment according to the CCG form meant that the plaintiff would only be paid after the defendant had been paid by CCG. The defendant argued that the plaintiff had verbally agreed to adopt the CCG form.

The plaintiff was appointed subcontractor by the defendant Plaintif telah dilantik sebagai subkontraktor oleh defendan
to carry out certain works for a construction project. untuk menjalankan kerja suatu projek pembinaan.
The defendant was appointed by the main contractor Defendan telah dilantik bekerja oleh kontraktor utama
main contractor kontraktor utama
The plaintiff’s claim against the defendant was in respect of the balance due Tuntutan plaintif terhadap defendan adalah mengenai baki bayaran yang perlu dipayar
balance baki bayaran
balance due baki bayaran yang perlu dipayar
for work done. untuk kerja-kerja yang telah dijalankan.
The contract between the plaintiff and defendant Perjanjian di antara plaintif dan defendan
was based on a letter dated 19 July 1995. berdasarkan surat yang bertarikh 19 Julai 1995.
Clause 5.2 of the said letter clearly stipulated that Klausa 5.2 surat tersebut jelas menyatakan
clearly stipulated that jelas menyatakan bahawa
the terms of payment terma-terma bayaran
would be in accordance with the PAM form of payment (‘PAM form’). akan mengikut cara bayaran PAM
The only issue before the High Court Isu di hadapan mahkamah
was whether. adalah sama ada
the plaintiff should be paid according to the PAM form plaintif patut dibayar menurut cara PAM
Payment according to the PAM form entitled the plaintiff to be paid Bayaran menurut cara PAM menyebabkan plaintif berhak untuk dibayar
within 14 days dalam masa 14 hari
of the receipt by the contractor of the architect’s certificate. daripada tarikh penerimaan sijil arkitek oleh kontraktor.
However, payment according to the CCG form meant that Akan tetapi bayaran menurut cara CCG bermakna
the plaintiff would only be paid plaintif hanya akan dibayar
after the defendant had been paid by CCG. setelah defendan mendapat bayaran daripada CCG
The defendant argued that Defendan telah menyatakan bahawa
the plaintiff had verbally agreed plaintif telah bersetuju secara lisan
to adopt the CCG form untuk mengunakan cara CCG.
This entry was posted in Building contract and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.