PERWIK SDN BHD V LEE YEN KEE (M) SDN BHD [1996] 1 MLJ 857

PERWIK SDN BHD V LEE YEN KEE (M) SDN BHD
[1996] 1 MLJ 857
CIVIL APPEAL NO-
HIGH COURT (KUALA LUMPUR)
DECIDED-DATE-1: 5 AUGUST 1995
ZAKARIA YATIM J
CATCHWORDS:
Contract – Building contract – Construction of terms of contract – Whether permissible for defendant to vary terms of agreement on subsequent meeting – Whether terms of agreement complied with

Contract – Building contract – Progressive payments – Failure by plaintiff to deliver possession on time – Whether defendant entitled to withold progressive payment

HEADNOTES:
By an agreement and schedule of conditions of a building contract made on 4 March 1987 between the defendant and the plaintiff, the defendant appointed the plaintiff to be the main contractor for the construction of a project. Under the agreement, the plaintiff was to be paid on a progressive scale in respect of works done on the project. The plaintiff claimed that the project was completed on or about 25 June 1989 and was handed over to the defendant. The plaintiff contended that it had been agreed by all parties that the final contract sum would be RM3,035,280.25 but that, as at 31 December 1988, the defendant had only made payments totalling RM2,562,800 and accordingly, the plaintiff made a claim for the balance of RM467,480.25 which was still due and outstanding. The defendant denied being indebted to the plaintiff in the sum claimed. It contended that: (i) various payments had been made direct to the plaintiff’s sub-contractors with the plaintiff’s consent and approval; (ii) the plaintiff was in breach of the contract in failing to carry out plastering works to the project, whereupon the defendant had to engage its own contractors to carry out the works, that it had notified the plaintiff of the breach and that accordingly, it was entitled to deduct all sums paid to its contractors from the final contract sum; and (iii) the plaintiff had failed to deliver the housing units to the defendant on time with the result that the defendant had suffered damages. There were two appeals in the present proceedings. The first appeal was filed by the plaintiff against the decision of the senior assistant registrar that execution be stayed pending the outcome of the defendant’s appeal. The second appeal was filed by the defendant against the decision of the senior assistant registrar granting leave to the plaintiff to enter summary judgment against the defendant.

By an agreement Melalui suatu perjanjian
and schedule of conditions of a building contract made on 4 March 1987 dan jadual syarat-syarat kontrak pembinaan yang telah dibuat pada 4 Mac 1987
schedule of conditions jadual syarat-syarat
between the defendant and the plaintiff, di antara defendan dan plaintif,
the defendant appointed the plaintiff to be the main contractor defendan melantik plaintif sebagai kontraktor utama
for the construction of a project. bagi pembinaan suatu projek.
Under the agreement, the plaintiff was to be paid on a progressive scale Di bawah perjanjian tersebut, plaintif akan dibayar mengikut skala progresif
on a progressive scale mengikut skala progresif
in respect of works done on the project. berhubung dengan kerja yang dilakukan ke atas projek itu.
The plaintiff claimed that the project was completed on or about 25 June 1989 Plaintif telah mendakwa bahawa projek itu telah disiapkan pada atau kira-kira pada 25 Jun 1989,
The plaintiff claimed Plaintif telah mendakwa
the project was completed projek itu telah disiapkan
and was handed over to the defendant. dan telah diserahkan kepada defendan.
The plaintiff contended that it had been agreed by all parties that the final contract sum would be RM3,035,280.25 but that, as at 31 December 1988, Plaintif berhujah bahawa semua pihak telah mempersetujui bahawa jumlah kontrak yang muktamad adalah RM3,035,280.25 tetapi pada 31 Disember 1988,
it had been agreed by all parties semua pihak telah mempersetujui
the final contract sum jumlah kontrak yang muktamad
the defendant had only made payments totalling RM2,562,800 defendan hanya telah membuat bayaran berjumlah RM2,562,800
and accordingly, the plaintiff made a claim for the balance of RM467,480.25 dan justeru itu, plaintif membuat tuntutan untuk baki sebanyak RM467,480.25
which was still due and outstanding. yang masih terhutang dan belum dijelaskan.
still due masih terhutang dan belum dijelaskan.
outstanding belum dijelaskan
The defendant denied being indebted to the plaintiff in the sum claimed. Defendan menafikan bahawa dia berhutang dengan plaintif sebanyak jumlah yang dituntut.
denied menafikan
It contended that: (i) various payments had been made direct to the plaintiff’s sub-contractors with the plaintiff’s consent and approval; Ia berhujah bahawa: (i) pelbagai bayaran telah dibuat terus kepada subkontraktor plaintif dengan persetujuan dan kelulusan plaintif;
various payments pelbagai bayaran
consent persetujuan
approval kelulusan
(ii) the plaintiff was in breach of the contract in failing to carry out plastering works to the project (ii) plaintif telah memungkiri kontrak itu kerana gagal menjalankan kerja melepa ke atas projek itu,
was in breach of the contract telah memungkiri kontrak itu
in failing to kerana gagal
carry out menjalankan
plastering works kerja melepa
plaster melepa
plaster menampal atau melapis dinding
   
that it had notified the plaintiff of the breach bahawa ia telah memberitahu plaintif mengenai kemungkiran itu,
notified telah memberitahu
and that accordingly, it was entitled to deduct all sums paid to its contractors from the final contract sum; and dan bahawa dengan itu ia berhak untuk menolak kesemua jumlah yang telah dibayar kepada kontraktornya daripada jumlah kontrak yang muktamad; dan
and that accordingly dan bahawa dengan itu
it was entitled to deduct ia berhak untuk menolak
all sums paid kesemua jumlah yang telah dibayar
the final contract sum jumlah kontrak yang muktamad
(iii) the plaintiff had failed to deliver the housing units to the defendant on time (iii) plaintif telah gagal menghantar-serah unit rumah kepada defendan pada masa yang ditetapkan,
with the result that the defendant had suffered damages. dan oleh itu, defendan mengalami kerugian.
There were two appeals in the present proceedings. Terdapat dua rayuan dalam prosiding ini.
The first appeal was filed by the plaintiff Rayuan pertama difailkan oleh plaintif
against the decision of the senior assistant registrar terhadap keputusan penolong pendaftar kanan
that execution be stayed bahawa pelaksanaan digantung
pending the outcome of the defendant’s appeal. sementara menunggu kesudahan rayuan defendan.
outcome kesudahan
The second appeal was filed by the defendant against the decision of the senior assistant registrar Rayuan kedua difailkan oleh defendan terhadap keputusan penolong pendaftar kanan
senior assistant registrar penolong pendaftar kanan
granting leave to the plaintiff to enter summary judgment against the defendant. yang memberi kebenaran kepada plaintif untuk memasukkan penghakiman terus terhadap defendan.
granting leave memberi kebenaran
to enter summary judgment untuk memasukkan penghakiman terus
This entry was posted in Building contract and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.