悔婚(败)+欠钱不还(胜)的诉讼 [2023] MLJU 2050

案件概况及诉讼请求

1. 原告(前女友-Eva)以违反婚约承诺及关于被告婚姻状况的虚假陈述为由，向被告 (前男友)提出诉讼，要求除赔偿一般及特别损害赔偿金共计 RM500,000 外，另返还其提供给被告的贷款总额 RM153,000，并要求加付利息及诉讼费用。原告旨在以充分证据证明被告在双方恋爱期间的种种不当行为，要求法律予以制裁和经济赔偿。

法庭初审判决结果

2. 经完整审理及举证质证后，本案法官 作出判决：原告在证明被告方面仅在贷款事宜上达到“优势证据”（balance of probabilities）标准，因而对 RM153,000 中经扣减被告已归还的 RM44,000 部分，认可原告有效贷款金额为 RM109,000，并判令自提交传票之日起至全额结清之日止，以每年 5% 的利率计付利息及承担诉讼费用；而对于关于违反婚约及虚假陈述婚姻状况之主张，原告未能满足证明责任，故该部分主张不予支持。

案件背景与当事人身份

3. 原告是一名女性企业家，从事护肤品及化妆品生意。被告是一间公司的董事，其婚姻状态自2002年4月21日起与 OSG 结为夫妻。被告公司的业务主要涵盖香水、化妆品、肥皂及盥洗用品的进出口贸易，并提供诸如美白等美容治疗服务。
4. 原告与被告最初于2016年农历新年期间在一场聚会中结识。2016年3月，原告开始为被告公司推广产品担任模特；随后，于2016年4月，双方开始发展恋情，维持长达一年之情感纠葛，直至2017年4月宣告终止。尽管双方存在感情往来，但原告始终对被告的婚姻状况抱有疑虑，因其后发现被告在婚姻关系存续期间仍与其保持不正当关系。
5. 原告在其诉状中提出，双方在恋爱期间曾有约定婚姻之承诺；此外，于2016年4月，被告曾因公司资金困难向原告求助，称需筹集 RM153,000。基于此，原告先后以现金支付 RM47,800，并多次以银行转账方式向被告账户汇入 RM105,200，总计达 RM153,000。原告主张，被告口头承诺将此笔款项作为其公司投资，然而，事后被告在原告多次询问其作为合伙人登记及婚姻承诺问题时，不仅态度转为威胁，更以欠款论责；当原告亲赴被告公司查证后，发现被告实际处于婚姻状态，且原告并非其公司的代理人。最终，被告仅归还约 RM44,000，致使原告实际遭受经济损失巨大，遂请求法院判令被告支付剩余贷款本金及相应利息。

被告的抗辩立场

6. 被告对此提出全面否认，其主张从未承诺或暗示与原告结婚，且原告早知被告已婚；同时被告坚称，原告所谓的 RM153,000 之款项并非贷款，而系为购买美容设备、产品及面部仪器所支付，亦或为原告客户直接向其公司支付的款项；此外，被告亦否认曾接受原告所述的 RM47,800 现金。被告进一步辩称，公司业务一直运行正常，并无资金困境，且在2017年10月已返还 RM44,000，以此证明其对原告无任何欠款责任。

待确定之法律争议焦点

7. 法院需解决的争议焦点包括：首先，是否存在被告曾向原告承诺结婚及虚假陈述婚姻状况的问题；其次，原告支付的 RM153,000 是否应认定为贷款，或是否属于为以下特定用途支付的款项：一为购买美容设备、产品及面部仪器；二为原告客户直接支付给被告公司之货款；三为原告个人采购美容产品之支出。

法庭对婚约及虚假陈述问题的裁定

8. 对于第一项争议，即关于被告是否曾承诺结婚以及是否就婚姻状况存在虚假陈述问题，法庭认为双方均无争议地确认曾存在恋情，但原告未能就被告承诺结婚及虚假陈述婚姻状况提供足够证据达到“优势可能性”(balance of probabilities)标准。鉴于此，该部分主张不获支持，并无上诉争议，故法庭不再对此详细论述。

关于款项性质之证据分析

9. 法庭在庭审过程中，经原告证人（PW1）陈述证明，原告共以现金支付 RM48,300 并通过银行转账支付 RM104,700，合计金额为 RM153,000。原告所提交的证据包括与被告之间的微信聊天记录、在线转账收据、现金存款交易凭证及针对被告所立的警方报案记录，均已作为展览物予以认可。双方曾达成共识，被告仅归还 RM44,000，使得原告实际贷款剩余为 RM109,000。法庭据此判定原告在贷款部分的主张符合法律证明责任，应予支持。
10. 被告主张其并未面临任何资金困境，然原告通过微信记录明确显示，被告曾就公司资金问题向原告求助。此外，原告亦出示了一份报纸广告，其中刊载了针对被告于2017年4月5日所发出的破产通知，进一步佐证了被告确实处于财务困境之中。上述证据在一定程度上推翻了被告关于资金状况正常之辩解。
11. 原告同时陈述，作为被告公司产品的模特及推广人员，其所从事的活动完全出于对被告的援助之心，且未获得任何报酬。原告还积极为被告公司开发客户，并促使客户直接将款项支付至被告公司账户，该等事实在一定程度上证明了原告在业务操作中并非单纯的借贷关系，而是存在明确的合作及委托代理关系，但最终并未取得相应的权益或补偿。
12. 被告辩称，原告所支付之款项实际用于购买美容设备、产品及面部仪器，或为原告客户支付美容产品货款之用途。对此，法庭审查了由被告公司前雇员 DW1 提供的证词，该证人曾表示原告实际上担任公司代理，负责为客户撮合美容治疗服务，并与被告共同前往原告营业处提供服务。根据 DW1 所举证的部分客户资料卡（见展品 D58 及 D59），客户付款记录中曾标注“Transfer to Eva later”（意指“稍后转账给 Eva”），似乎暗示原告有权获得客户付款的佣金。然经交叉询问后，被告证人DW1 自认无明确记录显示款项由原告转交给被告或反之，且除个别页码外，客户资料卡中并未明确注明原告名称，致使该部分证据在证明款项用途方面缺乏决定性支持。
13. 被告 DW2 表示，她通过原告购买了被告公司所销售的两种美容治疗套餐，并于2017年4月13日以现金方式支付 RM7,500，因其不熟悉在线银行转账操作。然而，在交叉询问中，关于款项支付确认的问题存在诸多矛盾：DW2虽坚称已依原告要求以现金支付，但未见原告就该笔现金作出任何书面记录或签收确认。此种情形使得法庭对被告所辩称的付款流程产生疑虑，并进一步影响对款项性质认定的判断。
14. 被告证人 DW3 所陈述之内容与 DW2 大致相似，其亦指出原告曾要求所有客户以现金支付，并表示原告有时会代为垫付全额给被告，以便客户先行享用服务。尽管 DW3 在微信对话中曾提及“remaining 3500, when he come next month to do we will make payment”之语，但在解释“he”所指对象时虽承认系指被告，但又坚持款项支付最终是交由原告，而非直接支付给被告。此一自相矛盾的说法，使得被告关于资金用途的论证更显站不住脚。
15. 被告证人 DW4 则证明原告作为被告公司产品推广代理，除代为接洽客户外，还参与美容治疗服务之实施。DW4 表示，客户在接受服务前须全额付款，并按约定原告可获得60%之利润分成，而双方另有约定，原告应获得被告公司10%之股份作为额外补偿。然在交叉询问中，DW4 对于佣金支付方式先后自相矛盾，先称以现金支付，后又称通过 One Percent Flawless 进行转账；更重要的是，关于原告是否实质获得10%股份，DW4亦无任何证据佐证。此外，DW4 还提到原告支付之 RM44,750 用于购买各项业务产品，但相关货运交付单上明确记载的收货人及地址均非原告所有，而是以被告名义及Teluk Intan地址为准，这进一步削弱了被告关于款项非贷款用途的主张。

参照判例及法律条文的引证分析

16. 在裁决过程中，法庭引用了 Apex Communications Sdn Bhd 诉 Enovent Sdn Bhd [2022] 1 LNS 2554一案中有关部分付款可视为对债务的承认之判例，及 Cosmic Simulator Leisure Sdn Bhd 诉 Megamal Pinang JMB [2022] 1 LNS 1828中的相关论述。特别是，高等法院在 Khalek Awang & Anor 诉 Koperasi Perumahan Kluang Bhd & Another Appeal [2021] 10 CLJ 238一案中明确指出，民事案件中无论涉及欺诈指控，其证明标准均仅限于“优势可能性”(balance of probabilities)，而不存在第三种更高标准。法庭认为，虽然被告辩称涉及欺诈或串谋行为，但在民事诉讼中仍须按照“优势可能性”标准进行判断，并无额外更高证明要求。因此，被告一再试图以所谓“高标准”来推翻证据的主张，实为毫无依据。

法官最终的分析及裁决理由

17. 综合各项证据、证人陈述及双方在庭上各自提出的辩论，法庭认为被告在整体抗辩中所提出的理由明显是事后附会，且缺乏实质性支持，充其量仅为拖延诉讼、混淆视听之伎俩。相较之下，原告则能充分证明，其在贷出 RM153,000 后，仅获得 RM44,000 的部分归还，剩余 RM109,000 实质构成借贷关系，且证据链条完整、证人证词自洽。因此法庭判定原告在贷款部分主张获得支持，须支付自提起诉讼起算之日直至结清为止，每年以5%的利率计付利息，并承担相应诉讼费用；而关于婚约承诺及虚假陈述部分，则因原告未能满足证明标准，故予以驳回。

1. The Plaintiff instituted this present suit against the Defendant claiming for general and special damages amounting to RM500,000/- for breach of promise to marry and lying on the status of the Defendant’s marriage; loan given to the Defendant in the sum of RM153,000/- ; together with interests and costs.
2. My decision after the full trial was that the Plaintiff has succeeded in proving on the balance of probability the claim against the Defendant. Loan for the amount of RM109,000/- given to the Defendant was allowed together with interests at the rate of 5% per annum, from the date of filing of the summons to the date of full settlement and costs. The claim for breach of promise to marry and lying on the status of the Defendant’s marriage was not allowed.
3. The Defendant being dissatisfied with the decision of this Court, has filed an appeal to the High Court stating that he is appealing on part of my decision.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

4. The Plaintiff (also known as Eva) is a female individual and the owner of a business known as “Butik HM”. The Plaintiff is also the owner of a business known as “EBC” wherein the Plaintiff sells skincare and cosmetics.
5. The Defendant is a male individual and the director of OPI Sdn Bhd (the “Defendant’s Company”). The Defendant is also married to his wife, OSG, since 21.04.2002.
6. The Defendant’s Company is in the business of export and import of perfumeries, cosmetics, soap and toiletries. It also imports beauty treatments and skin care products bearing the brand name of “OneX” (the “OneX Products”), to be sold and distributed in Malaysia. The company also provides beauty treatment services such as skin whitening beauty treatment and skin whitening injections.
7. The Defendant’s Company has an affiliated office which is known as OPF. OPF is a partnership between the Defendant’s sister, OKL and the Plaintiff’s sister, KSW. OPF was established to manage the distribution and sale of the OneX Products imported by the Defendant’s Company.
8. The Plaintiff and Defendant became acquainted during a Chinese New Year open house function in January hosted by the Plaintiff’s sister. In March 2016, the Plaintiff became a model for the OneX Products in the Defendant’s Company.
9. Sometime in April 2016, the Plaintiff and Defendant began having an affair and the affair ended in April 2017.

PLAINTIFF’S PLEADED CASE

10. The Plaintiff’s pleaded case against the Defendant is as follows:

a) The Defendant made a promise to marry the Plaintiff during their affair;

b) Sometime in April 2016, the Defendant informed the Plaintiff that the Defendant’s Company was facing financial difficulties and he needed a sum of RM153,000/-. The Defendant then pleaded for help from the Plaintiff;

c) The Plaintiff gave RM47,800/- in cash to the Defendant and subsequently deposited RM105,200/- into the Defendant’s bank account on separate occasions;

d) The Defendant told the Plaintiff that the monies provided would be taken as an investment in the Defendant’s Company;

e) Sometime in July 2017, the Defendant began to threaten and accused the Plaintiff of owing him monies when she questioned about the status of the registration of her name as a partner in the Defendant’s Company as well as their marriage;

f) The Plaintiff visited the Defendant’s Company and discovered that he was married;

g) The Plaintiff was never an agent of the Defendant’s Company; and

h) The Defendant has returned a sum of approximately RM44,000/- to the Plaintiff.

DEFENDANT’S PLEADED CASE

11. The Defendant has taken the following position:

a) The Defendant has never promised and/or suggested any ideas of marriage to the Plaintiff; b) The Plaintiff has always been aware that the Defendant is a married man;

c) The Defendant has never received a total sum of RM153,000/- from the Plaintiff to be invested into the Defendant’s Company;

d) The Defendant’s Company never experienced any financial difficulties;

e) The Defendant has never received the sum of RM47,800/- in cash from the Plaintiff;

f) The Defendant does not owe the Plaintiff any sums. The monies given by the Plaintiff to the Defendant are for the following purposes:

(i) Purchasing beauty equipment, products and facial machines;

(ii) Monies paid by the Plaintiff’s customers for the beauty products sold by the Defendant’s Company; and

(iii) Purchasing beauty products for the Plaintiff’s own use;

g) A sum of RM44, 000/- has been returned to the Plaintiff in October 2017.

ISSUES TO BE DETERMINED

12. Issues to be determined at the trail was as follows:

A) Whether there was a promise by the Defendant to marry the Plaintiff and whether the Defendant had lied on the status of his marriage;

B) Whether the sums paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant as was:

(a) A loan to the Defendant; or

(b) For the purposes of:

i. Purchasing beauty equipment, products and facial machines;

ii. Monies paid by the Plaintiff’s customers for the beauty products sold by the Defendant’s Company; and

iii. Purchasing beauty products for the Plaintiff’s own use.

THE COURT’S DECISION

13. On the first issue, it is not disputed by the Defendant that he had been having an affair with the Plaintiff. But as to the issue of marriage, I found that the Plaintiff had failed to prove on a balance of probability that the Defendant had promised to marry the Plaintiff and had lied on the status of his marriage. Since there is no appeal on this decision, I will not dwell further on this issue.
14. Through the testimony of Plaintiff (PW1), I find that the Plaintiff had given the Defendant cash amounting to RM48,300/- as well as banked in money amounting to RM104,700/- to his account. This amounted to RM153,000/-. PW1’s evidence is supported by the weChat messages between her and the Defendant, the Online Transfer receipts, the Cash Deposit Transaction slips and police report made against the Defendant. All the above-mentioned documents have been marked as exhibits. The Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant that he had retuned money owing in the sum of RM44,000/- only. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant was reduced to RM109,000/- and this sum was allowed by the Court.
15. The Defendant’s defence was that he was not facing any financial difficulties. But it is evident through the weChat conversations between him and the Plaintiff that the Defendant had been facing financial difficulties. The Plaintiff had also proved produced an advertisement in the newspaper where a Bankruptcy Notice was issued against the Defendant on 5.4.2017.
16. According to the Plaintiff, she became a model to promote the products of the Defendant’s Company. She did this just to help the Defendant and was not paid any money for this. The Plaintiff also procured customers for the Defendant and any money received from the customers was paid directly to the Defendant’s Company.
17. The Defendant’s defence is that the monies given to him by the Plaintiff were for purchasing beauty equipment, products and facial machines. The defence is also that the monies paid by the Plaintiff were monies paid by the Plaintiff’s customers for the beauty products sold by the Defendant’s company. DW 1, a former employee of the Defendant’s company gave evidence that the Plaintiff was an agent of the Defendant’s Company and that she would look for customers to purchase the beauty treatments sold by the Defendant’s Company. DW 1 and the Defendant would travel frequently to Plaintiff’s shop or house to provide beauty treatments services for the Plaintiff’s customers. Customers will normally pay the Plaintiff in cash and the money will then be deposited by the Plaintiff into the Defendant’s bank account. Besides this, the defence also produced Profile Cards (Exhibit D58 and D59) for a few customers who had purchased the beauty treatment services provided by the Defendant’s Company. DW 1 gave evidence that she updated these Profile cards after each session of beauty treatment was carried out. I refer to Profile Card at Exhibit D59, according to DW 1, the beauty treatment costs RM7,500 /- and the customer made part payment of RM4,000/- on 18.3.2017 and the balance payment of RM3,500/ – was made on 27.3. 2017. There is a handwritten note in the profile card which says “Tranf to Eva later RM7,500 “, which should be read as “Transfer to Eva later”. This means that for the beauty treatment package purchased by the customer, the money was paid to the Plaintiff. During cross examination of DW 1, DW 1 agreed that there were no records of any payment from the Plaintiff to the Defendant or from the Defendant to the Plaintiff. DW 1 also agreed that in all the Profile cards, the Plaintiff’s name was not stated in the cards. It was put to DW 1 that the word “Transfer to Eva later” implies that DW 1 is then going to transfer the money to Eva later. It was also suggested that the word “Transfer to Eva later” was written as a reminder to DW 1 that the customer had paid the money to the Defendant’s Company and that commission from this customer’s payment is owing to the Plaintiff. DW 1 did not agree to all of the above. DW 1 however agreed that she does not have any knowledge regarding commission payment between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Company. During re-examination, DW 1 then said that the note in the Profile Card at page 288 “Transfer to Eva later” was not written by her but by her colleague by the name of CHS. Upon further cross-examination on this issue by the Plaintiff ‘s solicitor, DW 1 agreed that she did not know why CHS wrote the words “Transfer to Eva later” in the Profile card.
18. DW2 gave evidence that she purchased two types of beauty treatment packages sold by the Defendant’s Company and the beauty treatment packages were bought through the Plaintiff. Her treatment costs RM7,500/- and she made a cash payment to the Plaintiff on 13.4.2017 because she does not know how to carry out online bank transfers. DW2 also testified that she will be asked by the Defendant’s staff to sign on the Profile Card as proof to show that the treatment was carried out on that day and also to show the record of payment which was made to the Plaintiff. During cross-examination, DW2 said that she paid cash amounting to RM7,500/- to the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff requested that she be paid in cash. Profile card at page 322 of Bundle C was referred. DW2 did not know who wrote down the words “13/4/2017, gave Eva RM7,500.00” When DW2 paid RM7,500/- in cash to the Plaintiff, she did not ask the Plaintiff to write down anywhere on the payment she received nor did she ask the Plaintiff to sign anywhere as an acknowledgment that she had received the money. I find that the reason why DW2 said she paid the Plaintiff in cash was contradicting. DW2 also alleges that she had paid a big sum of money amounting to RM7,500/- to the Plaintiff without getting any acknowledgment of payment. Besides this, if payment is made to the Plaintiff, it is the Plaintiff who should be recording the monies received and not the Defendant recording in the Profile card when they allege that they do not receive any payment directly from the customer.
19. DW3’s evidence is similar to DW2’s evidence. Her reason for paying the Plaintiff in cash was that the Plaintiff herself requested that all the Plaintiff’s customers who wish to purchase the beauty treatment packages sold by the Defendant’s company must make payment to her by cash. Also, the Plaintiff would offer to help customers pay in advance, the full sum of the price for the beauty treatment package to the Defendant first, if the customer did not have enough money to make full payment. During cross-examination, DW3 was referred to a WeChat conversation between DW3 and the Plaintiff at page 370 of Bundle C where DW3 had stated “remaining 3500, when he come next month to do we will make payment”. Plaintiff’s solicitor suggested that the word “he” was in reference to the Defendant and that meant that DW3 was going to pay the Defendant. DW3 agreed but said that she did not pay the Defendant but paid the Plaintiff. At page 334, bundle C, Plaintiff’s solicitor again pointed out that in the WeChat conversation between DW3 and the Plaintiff, DW3 had stated “For the time being still have 7500. Need to pay him on the 7th . Ha ha ….” The word “him” referred to the Defendant and DW3 agreed. But DW3 did not agree that payment was made to the Defendant.
20. The Defendant (DW4) gave evidence that the Plaintiff was an agent for the Defendant’s company promoting beauty treatment services provided by the Company to other people such as her own customers as well as a model for the products. DW4 together with DW1 will travel to Plaintiff’s shop or house to carry out the beauty treatment services for her customers. Full payment must be made by all customers before the Company carries out the beauty treatment services. The Plaintiff was paid 60% of the profit and commission was usually calculated every two weeks. DW4 denies being in any financial difficulty and denied seeking financial help from the Plaintiff. Monies paid to DW4 by the Plaintiff was for the purpose of purchasing beauty equipment, products, facial machines, monies paid by customers of the Plaintiff for the beauty treatment services provided by the Company and beauty products purchased by the Plaintiff for her own use. As the Plaintiff helped DW4 to purchase products for the services to be carried out, it was agreed that the Plaintiff would be paid 60% of the profit as commission and the funds would be treated as an investment on the Company and DW4 would give the Plaintiff 10% of the shares in the Company. During cross-examination, DW4 said he paid the Plaintiff commission by way of cash. Later he said that commission was paid through OPF. DW4 also agreed that there is nothing to show that the Plaintiff received 10% shares in the company. DW4 gave evidence that the sum of RM44,750/- given by the Plaintiff was used to buy various products for the business which was to be used at the Plaintiff’s premises. Plaintiff’s solicitor agreed that there was nothing in the Delivery Order at page 382- Bundle C to show that these products were handed over to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff does not reside or has her business dealings at that address. Under the word Consignee, it is the Defendant’s name and phone number and the delivery address is at OPF’s address and not the Plaintiff’s address. DW4 also gave evidence that some customers paid the Plaintiff directly and some paid the Defendant directly. DW4 also testified that he had returned RM44,000/- to the Plaintiff in October 2017.
21. I refer to the case of Apex Communications Sdn Bhd [2022] 1 LNS 2554 where the High Court held as follows:

[47] This Court also draws guidance from the decision Nazlan Ghazali J (now JCA) in the case of Kris Heavy Engineering & Construction Sdn Bhd [2017] MLJU 906 which had found that part-payments can be considered as an admission of indebtedness:

“[30] Secondly, having examined the affidavit of parties, it is quite manifest that the Plaintiff had in fact made several part-payments towards the first and the second bill, even though these were each described as “Estimated Bill”. There is no dispute that these payments were effected in pursuance of these bills. For the first bill, as stated earlier, the part payments were made in 2003 and 2004, whilst for the second bill, on four occasions in 2016, the last being in August 2016.

[31] As such, it cannot be doubted that these part-payments signify a form of an acknowledgement and admission of indebtedness on the part of the Plaintiff.

[48] Thus, the Defendant’s admission of its indebtedness to repay the Advanced Sum to the Plaintiff is glaringly obvious by the Defendant’s own contemporaneous documents and by the Defendant’s own conduct.

22. As such, I find that the payment of RM44,000/0 to the Plaintiff indicate an acknowledgment and admission of indebtedness to the Plaintiff.
23. I refer to the case of Cosmic Simulator Leisure Sdn Bhd [2022] 1 LNS 1828, where the High Court held as follows:

“[29] Dalam kes KOH SIAK POO [1989] 3 MLJ 164, diputuskan bahawa:

“Where the written contracts are clear and unambiguous the court should not go behind the written terms of the contract to introduce or add new terms to it. See also Tindok Besar Estate Sdn Bhd [1979] 2 MLJ 229. The respondents did not challenge the validity of the contract on the ground of fraud or want or failure of consideration. What they sought to do was to attempt to establish that when the demand for payment was made to them the appellant had made some fraudulent misrepresentation. In a situation like this the duty of the court is confined to the construction of the written documents and extrinsic evidence is not admissible by virtue of ss. 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act.”

24. Based on the testimony of DW1, DW2, DW3 and DW4 together with all the documents filed by the Defence, I find that the defence is an afterthought and a sham defence.
25. Based on the evidence before this Court, I find that the Defendant’s defence against the Plaintiff’s claim is a sham and is entirely devoid of any merits. I find that the Plaintiff has discharged the burden of proof as laid down in section 101 Evidence Act 1950. In the circumstances, I find that the Plaintiff has proven on a balance of probabilities that the monies given to the Defendant was a loan.

Source: KSCv OKK [2023] MLJU 2050. Sessions Court Ipoh. Priscilla Hemamalini Nadarajan J.

==============================

*如果您需要聘请律师处理法律事务/付费法律咨询，请联系我们。

*欢迎Whatsapp Wilson Kuek律师: 019-2286668 (https://wa.me/60192286668) / 律师楼联系号码: 016-3229368 (https://wa.me/60163229368)。If you wish to engage our services, kindly Whatsapp Wilson Kuek at: 019-2286668 (https://wa.me/60192286668) / our Legal Firm’s contact at: 016-3229368 (https://wa.me/60163229368).

*我们的律师楼拥有超过 20 年的执业经验。我们有处理民事纠纷(打官司/法庭诉讼)、商业纠纷、劳工纠纷(工业法庭）、追讨债务、遗产分配、立遗嘱、离婚、抚养权、赡养费、产业分配、领养小孩、拟商业合约、拟雇佣协议、拟买卖合约、银行贷款、法律咨询、法律顾问、等法律事务。全马的案件，我们皆有处理。We handle various legal matters including civil litigation, commercial disputes, labour disputes (Industrial Court), debt recovery, probate & letter of administration, will, divorce, children custody, maintenance/alimony, adoption, distribution of matrimonial assets, drafting commercial agreements, drafting employment contracts, drafting sale and purchase agreements, process loan documentations, providing legal consultations, offering legal advisory services and handling miscellaneous legal works.

*我们的律师楼网站拥有超过3,000则法律文章，免费提供大众阅读+参考。欢迎填写您的资料，订阅我们的法律文章: www.kuekong.com。Our law firm’s website features over 3,000 legal articles, available for free to the public for reading and reference. Feel free to fill in your details to subscribe to our legal articles: www.kuekong.com.

*Wilson Kuek律师是《法律与你同行 Law & Justice》面子书群组的创办人。《法律与你同行》是马来西亚最大的法律平台。我们的平台每天为无数的平民百姓免费解除各类的法律困扰。Wilson Kuek is the founder of the Facebook group “Law & Justice.” “Law & Justice” is Malaysia’s largest legal platform, providing free legal assistance to countless individuals daily.

*加入我们的Telegram: https://t.me/LawAndJusticeGroup

*加入 我们的“法律与你同行”FB 群组: http://bit.ly/fblawnjustice

*加入我们的“法律与你同行的FB Page: https://bit.ly/lawandjusticefbpage

*订阅我们的YouTube (频道 1): https://bit.ly/48IFP0g

*订阅我们的YouTube (频道 2): http://bit.ly/lawnjustice

*Kuek, Ong & Associates. Advocates & Solicitors. No.86-1, Jalan Mahagoni 1, Bandar Botanic, 41200 Klang, Selangor Darul Ehsan.

#郭汪律师事务所 #郭汪律师楼 #巴生律师事务所 #巴生律师楼 #吧生律师事务所 #吧生律师楼 #KL律师 #吉隆坡律师

#民事诉讼律师 #民事案律师 #专打官司的律师 #专打官司律师 #商业纠纷

#处理工业法庭案件的律师 #处理工业法庭案件律师 #工业法庭律师 #劳工案件律师 #劳工法庭案件律师 #劳工法庭律师

#专打离婚案的律师 #专打离婚案律师 #处理离婚的律师 #处理离婚案的律师 #离婚律师

#买卖合约律师 #买卖合同律师 #商业合约 #商业合同

#有经验的律师 #好律师 #专业的律师 #值得信赖的律师 #信得过的律师 #靠得住的律师 #靠谱的律师 #利害的律师 #有信誉的律师 #有声望的律师 #有名望的律师 #有名声的律师 #出名的律师 #有名的律师 #有实力的律师 #马来西亚华人律师 #懂华文的律师 #懂华语的律师

#Kuek, Ong & Associates #Kuek Ong & Associates #Kuek Ong Associates #Kuek_Ong_Associates #Kuek-Ong-Associates #Kuek*Ong*Associates #KuekOngAssociates #Klang Legal Firm #Klang Lawyer #KL Lawyer #Kuala Lumpur Lawyer #Chinese Lawyer in Malaysia #Malaysia Lawyer #Civil Litigation Lawyer #Divorce Lawyer

#Specialised #Professional #Experienced #Trustworthy #Reliable #Reputable #Renowned #Famous #Skilled #Credible #Esteemed #Notable #Well-known #Capable

#breach of promise to marry #悔婚

#欠钱 #不还钱 #借钱 #买货

#本院参考了Kris Heavy Engineering & Construction Sdn Bhd [2017] MLJU 906案中的判决，该判决认定部分付款可被视为债务承认：”其次，经审查双方宣誓书，很明显原告确实针对第一和第二份账单进行了多次部分付款，尽管这些账单均被标注为’预估账单’。双方对这些付款均系履行该等账单义务并无争议。就第一份账单而言，部分付款分别于2003年和2004年支付；而第二份账单则在2016年分四次支付，最后一次付款发生于2016年8月。因此，这些部分付款无疑构成原告对债务的一种确认和承认。”

#在KOH SIAK POO [1989] 3 MLJ 164一案中，法院裁定：’当书面合同条款清晰明确时，法院不应超越合同书面约定引入或添加新条款。被申请人并未以欺诈、缺乏对价或对价失效为由质疑合同有效性。其主张系要求付款时申请人存在欺诈性虚假陈述。在此情形下，法院职责仅限于解释书面文件，根据《证据法》第91及92条，外部证据不予采信。’

爱情陷阱中的美容女王：百万投资背后的暗黑罗曼史

1. 在热闹非凡的2016年农历新年晚宴上，美容女王Eva邂逅了她命中注定的“Mr. Right”——风度翩翩、事业有成的OPI公司董事，司徒帅帅。
2. 他不仅有自己的进口美容王国，还大方承诺合作共赢、情感专属。Eva一颗芳心就这样彻底沦陷。
3. 短短几个月内，两人迅速升温，事业爱情双线并行，从模特走向合伙人，从甜言蜜语走向金钱往来。
4. 就在爱情最浓烈之际，司徒帅帅突然表示公司陷入“资金危机”，恳求Eva出手相助。Eva二话不说，分批把高达RM153,000转入对方户口，仿佛在燃烧自己的青春换取两人的未来。
5. 然而世事就是如此狗血——当Eva亲临他的公司查账、质问其合伙人身份为何还未注册时，却如晴天霹雳般发现——对方早在2002年已婚！原来这一切不过是一场“人财两空”的豪华爱情骗局？

怒火冲天进军法庭：婚姻承诺、财务纠纷与“爱情投资”的正面对决

1. 被骗感情、被骗金钱、被骗梦想的Eva不甘心坐以待毙，于是她强势入禀法庭，展开一场爱情与正义的复仇剧。
2. 她在法庭上控诉司徒帅帅不仅欺骗她婚姻状态，还在感情中承诺娶她、哄骗她投资RM153,000在其公司。
3. 她要求法庭判令被告赔偿RM500,000的损失，包括违约损害、精神痛苦以及本金加利息。
4. 司徒帅帅则全盘否认——他说根本没有求婚这回事，Eva早就知道他有老婆了；他强调这些钱是Eva帮忙购买美容设备、客户付款转账及自用产品的资金，并非“借款”。他还搬出证人，说Eva其实是他的产品代理、客户中介，甚至每两周可赚60%的高额佣金。
5. 双方一来一往，互揭老底，各种微信记录、转账凭证、顾客资料卡如烟花般在法庭上炸开。这是爱情？是生意？还是一场心理战？连旁听席都听得如痴如醉。

法槌落下真相大白：法院揭秘爱情骗局与财务真相的终章裁决

1. 面对双方铺天盖地的陈词与反击，法官冷静梳理出整个剧情的脉络。
2. 首先，关于“婚姻承诺”，虽然司徒帅帅承认两人有过不伦之恋，但法官认为Eva无法在证据上达到“可能性优势”的标准，证明他真的承诺娶她——所以这部分主张驳回。
3. 但剧情在第二回合峰回路转！关于RM153,000的去向，Eva一张张银行转账单据、微信记录、现金存款单，配合警方报案证明——将司徒帅帅围得水泄不通。反观司徒帅帅的抗辩，漏洞百出，辩词自相矛盾，连证人都在交叉盘问时含糊其辞。更有趣的是，司徒帅帅曾归还RM44,000，这等于无声地承认了债务的存在。最终，法庭判定这笔款项为真实贷款，扣除已还部分后，司徒帅帅需偿还RM109,000，并附加5%年息。爱情败局，金钱也得不到全数退还，法官的一锤下，宣告了这场“爱与金钱”的交易正式落幕。

剧终幕后的人生教训：如何用法律保护自己，远离“爱情贷款”陷阱？

1. 这场判决不是简单的还钱案，而是一记狠狠的警钟，提醒世人别让感情冲昏头脑、让荷包为爱情“流血”。
2. 首先，Eva用自己的心跳投资，却没有任何书面合同、明确条款，面对对方翻脸不认账时，几乎陷入“求助无门”的困境。幸好她保留了足够的转账纪录与沟通证据，才让真相水落石出。
3. 其次，司徒帅帅身为已婚人士，却在感情与财务中混淆界限，把合作、代理、恋爱掺在一起，最终不仅破坏婚姻名誉，也背上法律责任。
4. 最关键的是，本案再次强调：法律只认证据，不认情绪。无论你是恋人、朋友、亲人，只要涉及金钱，就必须白纸黑字，留存凭证。尤其是女性，切莫为了爱情放弃理智，落入“爱情贷款”、“感情投资”的陷阱。爱情可以盲目，但合同必须清楚；心可以交给对方，钱必须交给法治。如果你已经或即将面对类似情境，记得：拿起手机咨询(付费)Wilson Kuek律师，比刷卡还快；保住证据，比保住关系更有用。