1 On an appeal by the plaintiffs, in an O 14 application, where the defendants were given unconditional leave to defend the action, I allowed the appeal and gave judgment for the plaintiffs as claimed and costs. The defendants now appeal.

2 The claim of the plaintiffs is for the sum of $217,398.50 being the balance of the price for goods sold and delivered and services rendered to the defendants by the plaintiffs at the defendants` their servants` or agents` request. After the issue and service of the writ of summons, the defendants made part payment of $1,800 leaving a balance of $215,598.50 still due and owing.

3 The defendants admit that they have from time to time made payments to the plaintiffs in respect of the supply and installation of certain sound and lighting equipment, but they contend that all such payments were made for and on behalf of a third party, a company, Entlink Sdn Bhd (Entlink). In support of their contention, the defendants rely on a letter from the general manager of Entlink written about three weeks before the issue of the writ of summons which reads as follows:

4 To meet the defendants` contention, the managing partner of the plaintiffs made an affidavit in which he has succinctly summarized the following facts:

5 At the hearing of the appeal, Mr Seah for the plaintiffs submitted that these facts clearly show that the defendants were the purchasers of the goods, and therefore, they were personally liable under the contract. He strongly relied on the case of Pernas Trading v Persatuan Peladang Bakti Melaka [1979] 2 MLJ 124 . This Malaysian case was very much to the point. In this case, the plaintiffs sued the defendants for the balance of the price of goods sold and delivered to the defendants. In their defence, the defendants denied liability and sought to show that the goods were ordered for a third party. The plaintiffs` application for leave to sign final judgment was dismissed by the registrar and the decision was upheld by the learned High Court judge. The Federal Court, however, allowed the appeal. The court held that as the sales invoice and the delivery note plainly showed that the defendants were the purchasers and the receivers of the goods, even if they were agents for a third party, they were still liable because they were contracting in such form as to make them personally liable.

6 After hearing both counsel, on the facts before me, I concluded that the plaintiffs in the present case had a stronger case than the plaintiffs in the abovementioned case. On the affidavit evidence, I found that the quotations, the invoices and the payment vouchers, all made it clear that the contract for the supply and installation of the sound and lighting equipment was between the defendants and the plaintiffs. I also found that there was no evidence that the plaintiffs knew at the time of the contract that the defendants were acting as agents for Entlink. Indeed, there is no reference to this company in any of the documents exhibited to the affidavits in these proceedings. As for the letter from Entlink written after notice of demand had been made by the plaintiffs` solicitors in my opinion, it was not worth the paper written on. It is enough to say that there was no privity of contract between the plaintiffs and Entlink to sustain that letter. For these reasons, I allowed the appeal with costs. The plaintiffs were entitled to enter judgment as claimed in the writ of summons.

7 Appeal allowed