Alliance Concrete Singapore Pte Ltd v Comfort Resources Pte Ltd
Judge | Chao Hick Tin JA |
Judgment Date | 28 July 2009 |
Neutral Citation | [2009] SGCA 34 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Toh Kian Sing SC, Winston Kwek and Charmaine Lim (Rajah & Tann LLP) |
Citation | [2009] SGCA 34 |
Published date | 17 September 2009 |
Year | 2009 |
Court | Court of Three Judges (Singapore) |
Defendant Counsel | Ian de Vaz and Joyce Ng (Wong Partnership LLP) |
28 July 2009 |
Judgment reserved. |
Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA (delivering the judgment of the court):
Introduction
4 On the same day, the Appellant commenced Suit No 604 of 2006 claiming a sum of $1,162,984.87 or, alternatively, damages for losses incurred by the Appellant. The Appellant claimed that the Respondent had repeatedly breached the Contract by failing to supply the contracted quantities of sand to the Appellant and subsequently terminating the supply altogether. The Appellant alleged that the Respondent had repudiated the contract through its letters dated 8 September 2006[note: 1] and 14 September 2006.[note: 2]The Appellant claimed to have accepted this repudiation through a letter dated 15 September 2006[note: 3] that it subsequently sent to the Respondent. Therefore, it also claimed damages for the loss it had suffered because of the premature termination of the Contract by the Respondent.
7 Thereafter, both suits were consolidated. This is an appeal against the decision of the trial judge (“the Judge”) in which the Judge awarded the Respondent final judgment in Suit No 601 of 2006 with damages to be assessed and dismissed the Appellant’s claim in its cross-suit in Suit No 604 of 2006 (see Comfort Resources Pte Ltd v Alliance Concrete Singapore Pte Ltd
The factual background
The Sub-Contractor shall sell and the Purchaser shall buy the quantity of concreting sand at the price and to be delivered as follows:-
1. Price
|
Location |
Price per m/ton delivered |
(i) |
Sungei Kadut |
S$12.40 |
(ii) |
Kaki Bukit Plant |
S$11.40 |
(iii) |
Tampines |
S$11.00 |
(iv) |
Tanglin Halt (Queenstown) |
S$12.20 |
(v) |
Toa Payoh Rise |
S$12.00 |
(vi) |
Keppel |
S$13.60 |
(vii) |
Sentosa |
S$14.00 |
The prices shall be held firm during the duration of this contract and no variations of [sic] whatsoever shall be entertained.
2. Quantity
The Sub-Contractor shall supply and deliver to the aforesaid plants an aggregate total quantity of 40,000 +/- 25% metric ton per month.
The Purchaser reserves the rights to adjust the quantity in any manner it deems fit to suit the production requirements/demand.
3. Contract Period
From 1 February 2006 to 31 January 2007 (1 year).
...
8. Terms of Payment
60 days from end of each month supply.
|
Plants |
Respondent’s price |
LCH’s price |
(a) |
Sungei Kadut |
$12.40 |
$13.00 |
(b) |
Kaki Bukit |
$11.40 |
$12.40 |
(c) |
Tampines |
$11.00 |
$11.90 |
(d) |
Queenstown |
$12.20 |
$13.10 |
(e) |
Toa Payoh |
$12.00 |
$12.80 |
(f) |
Keppel |
$13.60 |
$13.10 |
(g) |
Sentosa |
$14.00 |
$13.70 |
10 While deliveries of sand were made every day (save for Sundays and public holidays), the Appellant was only invoiced weekly by the Respondent. Contrary to cl 8 of the Contract, the Appellant did not make payment within the stipulated 60 days from the end of each month of supply. The table below shows the due dates of the respective amounts and the payment dates.
Month (2006) |
Amount Payable |
Due Date |
Payment Date |
February |
$229,934.49 |
29 April 2006 |
17 May 2006 |
March |
$246,605.13 |
30 May 2006 |
30 June 2006 |
April |
$197,136.07 |
29 June 2006 |
21 July 2006 |
May |
$171,786.78 |
30 July 2006 |
Unpaid |
June |
$174,125.88 |
29 August 2006 |
Unpaid |
July |
$55,536.13 |
29 September 2006 |
Unpaid |
11 Payments by the Appellant for all the months were late and the Respondent received payment only after it had sent reminders to the Appellant. As a result, the Respondent’s executive director, Tan Wan Fen (“Ms Tan”), instructed Patrick Chua (“Chua”), the Respondent’s marketing manager, to meet with the Appellant’s representatives to press for payment of the outstanding invoices. There were two meetings between the parties, one held on 7 June 2006 (“the first meeting”) and the other on 20 July 2006 (“the second meeting”).
To continue reading
Request your trial