Bayo Pay (M) Sdn Bhd v Pertubuhan Keselamatan Sosial (PERKESO)
Catchwords
[1] In this action, the plaintiff is alleging that there was a breach of contract on the part of the defendant pursuant to the Letter of Appointment dated 7 October 2020 ("Letter of Appointment"), which the plaintiff asserts makes it clear that this Letter of Appointment indicates that the defendant clearly acknowledged the existence of a contractual relationship and its intention to establish a legal relationship between the parties. Therefore, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant breached their contract when it failed to act further in this respect. [2] As for the defendant, it claims that there are no substantive terms in the Letter of Appointment, and therefore, it is not a binding contract. Further supporting its argument, the defendant claims that the Letter of Appointment specifically requires the parties to enter into a formal written agreement. Thus, the parties are not bound by a contract. [3] The Court finds that the need for a formal agreement is merely an expression of the parties' desire to formalise such an appointment. Based on the intention of the parties, it is thus clear that there is a binding contract between the parties. [4] As regards damages, based on a thorough examination of the arguments of the parties and the plaintiff's evidence in relation thereto, the Court finds that the plaintiff has not sufficiently proved its claim for damages.[5] In light of the above, the plaintiff’s action is therefore dismissed with costs of RM30,000.00, subject to allocatur.
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.
Read on eJudgmentSource: eJudgment (wa-21ncvc-73-10-2024)