Puncak Niaga M Sdn Bhd V Nz Wheels Sdn Bhd
The appellant had sued the respondent the sole importer and an authorised dealer of mercedes benz motor vehicles in malaysia for selling it a new luxury model mercedes benz car the car which was unfit for its purpose and not of.
Puncak niaga m sdn bhd v nz wheels sdn bhd. N 4 10 gamuda biz suites. 161190 m puncak holdings sdn. Posted on 26 december 2012 by mohd afiq bin rusly abstract.
Puncak niaga m sdn bhd v nz wheels sdn bhd 2012 1 amr 1 facts of the case the appellant a company had purchased a brand new luxury mercedes benz motor vehicle model s350l from the respondent. 1 the plaintiff appellant puncak niaga m sdn bhd applied for summary judgment under order 14 of the rules of the high court 1980 rhc against the first defendant respondent nz wheels sdn bhd no. In the case of puncak niaga m sdn bhd v mohd sulaiman mohd yahya award no.
603 5131 3433 fax. During these six months the claimant was not given any guidance or on the job training. Is a company registered with suruhanjaya syarikat malaysia and and is issued with the registration number 161190 m for its business operation.
Puncak niaga m sdn bhd v nz wheels sdn bhd 2012 1 amr 1. Thus in puncak niaga m sdn bhd v nz wheels sdn bhd 2012 1 mlj 27 the court of appeal decided that a private company who bought mercedes benz motor vehicle to be used as a company s car was a consumer. The car could not start on seven separate occasions.
The exceptions to this rule are goods must be reasonably fit for purposes for which the buyer want them and also goods must be of merchantable quality. Puncak niaga m sdn bhd v nz wheels sdn bhd 2011 9 clj 833. Syarikat 329033 v before the senior assistant registrar sar.
Puncak niaga m sdn bhd v nz wheels sdn bhd. Member of the malaysian bar. Nz wheels sdn bhd.
282 of 2001 the claimant was employed by the company as a general manager. Kota kemuning section 31. 12 jalan anggerik vanilla 31 99.
Puncak niaga m sdn bhd v. The plaintiff decided to return the car on may 2007. The car was not in fact and in law of an acceptable quality.
2011 9 clj 833 ca luxury vehicle not of an acceptable quality within provisions of consumer protection act 1999 purchaser entitled to reject the judgment may also be viewed here. Based on the case law puncak niaga m sdn bhd v nz wheels sdn bhd where the goods have only one purpose the description of the goods is enough to indicate their purpose. 2012 1 mlj 27.
