SYARIKAT TAN KIM BENG & RAKAN-RAKAN V PULAI JAYA SDN BHD [1992] 1 MLJ 42

SYARIKAT TAN KIM BENG & RAKAN-RAKAN V PULAI JAYA SDN BHD
[1992] 1 MLJ 42
CIVIL SUIT NO 186 OF 1985
HIGH COURT (IPOH)
DECIDED-DATE-1: 18 SEPTEMBER 1991
PEH SWEE CHIN J
CATCHWORDS:
Contract – Building contract – PAM Standard Form of Building Contract (1979 Ed) cll 11, 22, 23 & 30(1) – Sums certified by architect and unpaid – Counterclaim for alleged defective work

Contract – Liquidated damages – Whether employer can claim liquidated damages when architect has granted an extension of time – Whether notice of delay from contractor necessary when delay is caused by extra work ordered by architect

HEADNOTES:
By a contract made on 7 July 1982 incorporating the PAM Standard Form of Building Contract Conditions (1979 Ed), the plaintiff contractors agreed with the defendant, a developer, to erect 107 units of single-storey terrace houses in Simpang Pulai, Ipoh. Due to disputes over defects and alleged late handing over of the keys, amounts certiand due to the plaintiff under the contract totalling $ 365,744.88 remained unpaid.

By a contract made on 7 July 1982 Melalui satu kontrak yang dibuat pada 7 Julai 1982
incorporating the PAM Standard Form of Building Contract Conditions (1979 Ed), yang menggabung Syarat-Syarat Kontrak Pembinaan Bentuk Seragam PAM (Edisi 1979),
the plaintiff contractors agreed with the defendant, plaintif kontraktor bersetuju dengan defendan,
a developer, seorang pemaju,
to erect 107 units of single-storey terrace houses in Simpang Pulai, Ipoh. untuk mendirikan 107 unit rumah teres setingkat di Simpang Pulai, Ipoh.
Due to disputes over defects Oleh kerana pertikaian atas kerosakan
and alleged late handing over of the keys, dan dakwaan kelewatan dalam menyerahkan kunci,
handing over of the keys, menyerahkan kunci
amounts certified amaun yang disahkan
and due to the plaintiff dan perlu dibayar kepada plaintif
under the contract totalling $ 365,744.88 di bawah kontrak itu berjumlah $ 365,744.88
remained unpaid. masih belum dibayar.

The defendant resisted the plaintiff’s claim on three grounds. First, that the work executed was defective and that other contractors had to be engaged for remedial works, at a cost of $ 9,268.90, which amount the defendant counterclaimed. Second, that the plaintiff was late in completing the work by 8 months and 25 days and that the defendant was entitled to liquidated damages amounting to $ 176,675 at the rate of $ 5,000 per week, under cl 22 of the contract, despite the architect having granted to the contractor an extension of time of nine and a half months under cl 23 in respect of this delay which was caused, inter alia, by the postponement of the works and extra works ordered on the defendant’s behalf. Third, that the contractor had wrongfully detained keys to houses built by him under the contract, thereby causing the defendant to be liable to the purchasers in damages for late delivery.

The defendant resisted the plaintiff’s claim Defendan menentang tuntutan plaintif
on three grounds. atas tiga alasan-alasan.
First, that the work executed was defective Pertama, bahawa kerja yang dilaksanakan adalah tidak sempurna
and that other contractors had to be engaged for remedial works, dan bahawa kontraktor-kontraktor lain terpaksa diambil untuk kerja-kerja pembaikan
had to be engaged terpaksa diambil
for remedial works untuk kerja-kerja pembaikan
at a cost of $ 9,268.90, which amount the defendant counterclaimed. pada kos sebanyak $ 9,268.90, yakni amaun yang dituntut balas oleh defendan.
Second, that the plaintiff was late in completing the work by 8 months and 25 days Kedua, bahawa plaintif telah lewat dalam menghabiskan kerja selama 8 bulan dan 25 hari
and that the defendant was entitled to liquidated damages amounting to $ 176,675 dan bahawa defendan adalah berhak kepada gantirugi jumlah tertentu yang berkepada $ 176,675
at the rate of $ 5,000 per week, pada kadar $ 5,000 seminggu,
under cl 22 of the contract, di bawah fasal 22 kontrak itu,
despite the architect having granted to the contractor an extension of time of nine and a half months under cl 23 walaupun arkitek telah memberikan kontraktor suatu perlanjutan masa selama sembilan setengah bulan di bawah fasal 23
an extension of time suatu perlanjutan masa
in respect of this delay which was caused, berkenaan dengan kelengahan ini
yang disebabkan,
inter alia, antara lainnya,
by the postponement of the works oleh penangguhan kerja-kerja
and extra works ordered on the defendant’s behalf. dan kerja-kerja tambahan/lebih yang diarah bagi pihak defendan.
extra works kerja-kerja tambahan/lebih
on the defendant’s behalf. bagi pihak defendan
Third, that the contractor had wrongfully detained keys to houses built by him under the contract, Ketiga, bahawa kontraktor telah
dengan salahnya menahan kunci-kunci kepada rumah-rumah yang dibina olehnya di bawah kontrak,
wrongfully detained keys dengan salahnya menahan kunci-kunci kepada rumah-rumah
thereby causing the defendant to be liable to the purchasers in damages dengan itu menyebabkan defendan kena bayar gantirugi kepada pembeli-pembeli
liable to the purchasers in damages kena bayar gantirugi kepada pembeli-pembeli
for late delivery untuk hantar-serah lewat.
This entry was posted in Building contract and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.