LITT
Try LITT free
SECC Holdings Pte Ltd v Helios PV (Asia Pacific) Pte Ltd (Sinohydro Corp Ltd (Singapore Branch), garnishee) [2024] SGHC 215
A tripartite agreement was formed on 10 March 2022, and the clause in question operated as a direct payment arrangement rather than an assignment of debt, allowing the judgment creditor to garnish the sum.
Banque de Commerce et de Placements SA, DIFC Branch & Anor v China Aviation Oil (Singapore) Corporation Ltd [2024] SGHC 145
The court held that the contract between the defendant and the third party was not a sham or fraudulent transaction, and that the plaintiff failed to establish liability in deceit, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, or unlawful means conspiracy.
Ang Hong Wei and others v Ang Teng Hai and another [2024] SGHC 14
The court held that where a contract is silent on the time for payment of a substantial sum, the law implies an obligation to perform within a reasonable time, and variations to such contracts must be supported by consideration.
SCP Holdings Pte Ltd v I Concept Global Growth Fund and another matter [2023] SGHC 269
An agreement to agree is not a contract and is unenforceable. The court will set aside a statutory demand only if there are triable issues as to whether the debt is payable.
Yamashita Tetsuo v See Hup Seng Ltd [2008] SGHC 21
The court held that the Deed of Settlement should be construed as a whole, and that clause 5.2, which stipulates that 75% of the SHSH Convertible Loan shall be repaid in cash, is the operative clause. The convertibility feature has intrinsic commercial value, and the 25% discount
PT Tenar Indoam Oil Services v Third Wave Group Ltd [2008] SGHC 18
The court ruled that existing Agency Agreements did not automatically extend to new products. Instead, a separate Commission Agreement, established through oral communication and conduct, determined commission rates based on ex-Singapore pricing.
MacarthurCook Property Investment Pte Ltd and Another v Khai Wah Development Pte Ltd [2007] SGHC 93
The court held that the Option terminated automatically on 31 January 2007 because the conditions precedent were not satisfied by the end of the Satisfaction Period, and that the respondent was also entitled to terminate the Option under cl 2.4(b) due to unsatisfactory conditions
Tipper Corp Pte Ltd v JTC Corporation [2007] SGHC 67
A claim for negligent misrepresentation fails if the alleged representation is a statement of future intention rather than existing fact, and if the representee fails to prove the representation was made.
LF Construction Pte Ltd v Yeo Pia Thian (trading as System Aluminium Works) [2007] SGHC 45
A formal contract entered into after work has begun can have retrospective and prospective contractual effect, and in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation, a party is bound by a signed document regardless of whether they read it.
Robertson Quay Investment Pte Ltd v Steen Consultants Pte Ltd and Others [2007] SGHC 30
The court held that capitalised interest payments do not constitute an actual loss recoverable as damages for breach of contract, as they are an accounting procedure rather than a change in the nature of the interest to capital.
Ahuja Vivek Gopaldas and Another v Sukanda Sutisna [2007] SGHC 224
The court held that the defendant had granted a valid option to purchase with a 14-day expiry period, and that the plaintiffs had validly exercised it.
Po Chiak Keng Tan Si Chong Su v Goh Joo Heng [2007] SGHC 195
The court held that the defendant was in breach of contract by failing to pay suppliers and by failing to account for donations, justifying the termination of the agreement.