LITT
Try LITT free
Wishing Star Ltd v Jurong Town Corp [2007] SGHC 128
The court held that the defendant was entitled to damages for the difference in contract value following the plaintiff's breach, but disallowed certain administration and site costs that were not proven to be reasonably occasioned by the breach.
Lim Cheng Liang and Another v 33 Boat Quay Pte Ltd and Another [2007] SGHC 125
The operative terms of a contract are those contained in the final executed agreement, which subsumes any prior agreements.
Singapore Technologies Kinetics Ltd v Eco Fuels Solutions Asia, Inc and Others [2007] SGHC 103
A guarantee expressed as a continuing security is enforceable according to its terms, and a defence of misrepresentation in a summary judgment application requires a trial if it is not entirely shadowy.
Candid Water Cooler Pte Ltd v United Overseas Bank Ltd [2006] SGHC 80
The court held that the parties were bound by their agreement that 19 July 2005 was the contractual completion date, regardless of whether the Consent Letter constituted JTC's approval.
GYC Financial Planning Pte Ltd and Another v Prudential Assurance Company Singapore (Pte) Ltd [2006] SGHC 71
The court held that the termination of the Corporate Manager Agreement was valid as the defendant gave sufficient notice and had good reason due to the Financial Advisers Act prohibiting corporate entities from acting as representatives of exempt financial advisers. Furthermore,
Justlogin Pte Ltd and Another v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd and Another [2006] SGHC 209
In a claim for loss of chance, the court must determine if the breach caused the loss of a real or substantial chance, and if so, evaluate the quantum of damages based on the value of that chance.
Otto Systems Singapore Pte Ltd v Greenline-Onyx Envirotech Phils, Inc [2006] SGHC 176
A letter written by a party's solicitors during negotiations can constitute an acknowledgement of debt if it contains a clear admission of liability, even if the exact amount is disputed, provided the correspondence is not protected by without prejudice privilege.
Highness Electrical Engineering Pte Ltd v Sigma Cable Co (Pte) Ltd [2006] SGHC 114
A party commits a repudiatory breach if their conduct deprives the innocent party of a substantial part of the benefit of the contract, making it unfair to hold them to the contract.
Teo Song Kwang (alias Teo Richard) and Another v Vijayasundram Jeyabalan [2005] SGHC 60
A co-guarantor is liable to contribute to a settlement paid by another co-guarantor even if separate guarantee documents were signed, provided they are part of the same transaction. However, claims for contribution to business losses fail if the losses are not proven.
Tan Chin Seng and Others v Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd (No 2) [2005] SGHC 38
The court held that while the plaintiffs failed to prove pecuniary loss through diminution in membership value, they were entitled to general damages for loss of amenity and enjoyment under the Ruxley principle for breach of contract.
Lim Chin San Contractors Pte Ltd v Sanchoon Builders Pte Ltd [2005] SGHC 227
A breach of contract that is not repudiatory in nature does not entitle the innocent party to terminate the contract. Minor breaches only entitle the innocent party to claim damages.
Chan Hong Seng Engineering and Construction Pte Ltd v Vatten International Pte Ltd [2004] SGHC 62
The assessment of damages for breach of a construction subcontract requires reliance on interim progress certificates to determine the value of work done and the cost of completion by a third party.
Yeo Boong Hua and Another v Turf City Pte Ltd and Others [2004] SGHC 38
The court held that there was no binding settlement agreement between the parties because the negotiations were conducted 'subject to contract', and no formal contract was executed.
Bayerische Landesbank Girozentrale v Khaw Hock Seang [2003] SGHC 42
The burden of proving a forgery lies on the person asserting it and the burden of proving a forgery is more onerous than the ordinary standard required in civil cases.
Housing & Development Board (a body incorporated under the Housing & Development Act) v Microform Precision Industries Pte Ltd [2003] SGHC 214
The doctrine of frustration does not apply where the alleged contingency was a known risk at the time of contracting and the party assumed that risk.
Fong Yoke San & Another v Chan Lee Pa [2002] SGHC 292
An option to purchase property signed by only one of several joint tenants is not necessarily incomplete or unperfected; it may be a binding contract on the signatory, who is then obliged to procure the other joint tenants to complete the sale.
Philip Motha Consultancy Pte Ltd v Jones Lang Lasalle Property Consultants Pte Ltd (formerly known as JLW Property Consultants Pte Ltd) [2002] SGHC 283
The court held that there was no oral co-broking agreement in 1995, and even if there were, it was superseded by the written agreement of 23 April 1996. Furthermore, the court found that the plaintiff's claim for a share of the commission was not supported by the evidence.
Abdul Razak Valibhoy v Keppel Investment Management Ltd [2002] SGHC 236
The court held that the Investment Agreement constituted the entire agreement between the parties, superseding pre-contract documents like the Investment Plan, and that the Plaintiff failed to establish any collateral contract or breach of fiduciary duty.
Rahmatullah s/o Oli Mohamed v Rohayaton binte Rohani and Others [2002] SGHC 222
The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for specific performance because the signatures of the defendants on the option to purchase were forged, and the plaintiff failed to come to equity with clean hands.
Fu Hai Construction Pte Ltd v Econ Corporation Limited [2002] SGHC 201
The court held that the defendants made fraudulent misrepresentations regarding soil conditions and the scope of the subcontract, entitling the plaintiffs to rescission of the contract.
Malayan Banking Berhad v Measurex Engineering Pte Ltd and Another [2002] SGHC 192
The court held that interest rates agreed to by the borrower, including a spread component, are binding and cannot be challenged by the guarantor.
Steelcrete Construction & Engineering Pte Ltd v James Low Yao Chang (Klay Associates, Third Party) [2002] SGHC 18
The court found the defendant liable for wrongful termination of the construction contract and ordered payment of outstanding progress claims, subject to deductions for defects.
Teo Hee Lai Building Construction Pte Ltd v Anwar Siraj and Another [2002] SGHC 139
Unconscionability is a ground for restraining a call on a performance bond, and the court will intervene at the interlocutory stage where there is a strong prima facie case of unconscionability.
Keppel FELS Limited v International Coatings Pte Ltd (formerly known as Courtaulds Coatings Singapore Pte Ltd) and Another [2002] SGHC 115
The court held that the blistering of the paint was osmotic, caused by salt contamination on the steel surfaces prior to painting, and that the First Defendants breached their duty to provide proper technical advice and specifications for surface preparation.