[2012] 10 MLJ 550
There was no conclusive proof the defendant was unable to pass a good title. Under s 7(1)(b) of the Hire Purchase Act 1967 the ability to pass a good title must be decided at the time when the plaintiff had paid all sums due under the HP agreement. The instant case was not concerned with a stolen or tampered vehicle. It was a case of an error in the recording of the correct chassis number. No one had tampered with the chassis number. To that extent it could not be said that there had been a total failure of consideration. The plaintiff’s claim for full refund was thus not strictly supported in law. The gist of the plaintiff’s defamation claim was slander by conduct combined with verbal statements made by the alleged agents of the defendant. Although there was no firm authority on the issue whether there could be slander only by conduct, it was incumbent on the plaintiff to have provided full particulars of claim in compliance with O.78 of the Rules of the High Court 1980. Sufficient particulars of the alleged defamation and the publication of the alleged defamatory statements had to be provided. There was, however, very little by way of necessary particulars or by way of actual evidence to prove the allegations made. It appeared on the probabilities that the error in the recording of the chassis number was the result of human error. It was clear that both the plaintiff and the defendant could not be blamed. The plaintiff’s case was unsubstantiated and if allowed would result in her unjust enrichment. The position taken by the RTD that the parties to this action produce the third party’s vehicle was manifestly unreasonable, unjust and onerous. There was no requirement under the Road Transport Act that imposed such an onerous and near-impossible task upon them. As the relevant parties had informed RTD of the inaccuracy, and there was the report from Puspakom to establish that fact, the RTD was duty-bound to correct the error in accordance with law. Datuk Ganesan acted for CIMB Bank.