We shall apply Sales of Goods Act 1957 (SOGA) under Section 1(1) because in this case it was related

to sale of goods. Under Section 1(2) of SOGA 1957, we shall apply to this case as well because the shop
Bytes Sdn. Bhd. was located at Kuala Lumpur. Next, under Section 2 we can interpret or identify what
was required in the sale of good including buyer, seller, goods, etc. In this case, the Angel is the buyer
or defendant while Bytes Sdn. Bhd. is the seller or plaintiff and then, goods will be the laptop (Lonava
SSSM97A) which consider as moveable property bought by the defendant, Angel (the Buyer) and there
was also fault and quality of goods involved which means wrongful act or default after the sale and also
the state or condition of the goods where in this case the defendant, Angel (the Buyer) found out there
was damages to the laptop which were the ‘Enter’ button on the laptop was faulty, the battery supplied
with the laptop was defective and the laptop failed to work completely. In the case, not stated how much
the defendant Angel (the Buyer) paid for the laptop but, in the sense to proceed with the sale of goods,
monetary consideration should involve.

In this case, the Contract Act 1950 shall apply to the contract for the sale of goods. The sale and
agreement to sell were involved in this case, based on Section 4 (1) of SOGA 1957 where a contract of
sale of goods is a contract whereby the seller transfers or agrees to transfer the property in goods to the
buyer for a price and there may be a contract of sale between one part -owner. In short, the ownership or
property in good passed to the buyer when the sale occurs which we could see in this case when the
defendant bought and acquired the laptop in July 2020. In the contract, there are six elements involved
including offer, acceptance of the offer, consideration, mutual assent, capacity and legally acceptable
terms.

The Express Terms is that they are expressly or specifically stated either orally (verbally) or in writing
including offer, acceptance and consideration with the sale while Implied Terms is that they are not
expressly or explicitly stated because both parties the buyer and seller are fairly obvious to the contract
of sale of goods or in other words there was no written contract is present but circumstances may cause
one person to become unjustly enriched as a result of their actions or an understanding exits. In this
case,
since it was not stated whether there were any written terms so, we can consider that this case were
using Implied Terms. According to the SOGA 1957 under Section 16 (1)(a), the buyer expressly or by
implication makes known to the seller the particular purpose for which the goods are required to show
that the buyer depend on the skills and judgement of the seller when the seller sold the goods which the
goods sold are exactly what the seller’s business supply and the implied condition that the goods shall
be reasonably fit for the purpose. In short, by apply the SOGA 1957 under Section 16(1)(a) where the
goods (which is in this case the laptop) must be reasonably fit for purposes for which it was acquired
(when the buyer bought it from the seller). It can be relate to the case of Deutz Far East (Pte) Ltd v
Pacific Navigation Co Pte Ltd in which the defendant Deutz Far East (Pte) Ltd (the Buyer) said that the
goods which is the injector jump (NTP) supplied to them by the plaintiff Pacific Navigation Co Pte Ltd
(the Seller) was badly damaged and the defendant counterclaim that the goods (the engine of their ship)
was not fit for the purpose and was not of merchantable quality. So, according to this case, the right of
the defendant under the Soga 1957 under Section 16 (1) (a) after the sale of the laptop, the defendant,
Angel (the Buyer) discovered that there was damage to the goods in which the ‘Enter’ button on the
laptop was faulty and the battery supplied with the laptop was defective.