As per case facts, plaintiff installed fire alarm equipment from defendant, which malfunctioned. Defendant's staff allegedly disconnected external hooters without plaintiff's knowledge. A fire occurred, and the alarm failed, causing ... loss. The Trial Court partly decreed compensation for equipment. The First Appellate Court dismissed plaintiff's appeal and allowed defendant's appeal, dismissing the entire suit. The question arose whether the Appellate Court rightly ignored defendant's admission about disconnecting hooters and correctly applied the law of guarantee regarding the warranty card. Finally, the High Court held the First Appellate Court wrongly ignored the defendant's admission; defendant disconnected hooters without proof of plaintiff's request and is liable. Failure to submit a warranty card doesn't negate the claim if equipment wasn't sub-standard. The High Court restored the Trial Court's judgment, dismissing SA 282/2015 and allowing SA 566/2016.