Benzline Auto Pte Ltd v Supercars Lorinser Pte Ltd and another
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Sundaresh Menon CJ |
Judgment Date | 08 January 2018 |
Neutral Citation | [2018] SGCA 2 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Leslie Yeo (Sterling Law Corporation) |
Date | 08 January 2018 |
Docket Number | Civil Appeal No 103 of 2016 |
Hearing Date | 16 August 2017 |
Subject Matter | Restitution,Total failure of consideration,Failure of consideration |
Year | 2018 |
Defendant Counsel | Ho May Kim and Harry Zheng (Selvam LLC) |
Court | Court of Appeal (Singapore) |
Citation | [2018] SGCA 2 |
Published date | 25 January 2018 |
This appeal arises from a dispute over a payment of $300,000 made by the respondents to the appellant (“the Payment”) while the parties were negotiating a contract of sub-dealership. The negotiations eventually failed and the respondents sued for the restitution of the Payment. The central question before the High Court judge (“the Judge”) was whether the retention of the Payment was conditional on the conclusion of the sub-dealership agreement. The Judge found for the respondents and ordered that the Payment be refunded. He also dismissed the appellant’s counterclaim for breach of contract. This is our decision on the appellant’s appeal against the Judge’s decision on both the claim and the counterclaim.
BackgroundThe appellant, Benzline Auto Pte Ltd (“Benzline”), is in the business of retail sale and wholesale of car parts and accessories, and of providing modification services using those parts and accessories. It also engages in the parallel importation of cars. Benzline’s representatives during the period in which this dispute arose were Mr Ng Seng Keong (“Mr Ng”, also known as “Kevin”), who was and is Benzline’s managing director, and Mr Chong Ban Cheong (“Mr Chong”, also known as “George”), who was then Benzline’s marketing and business development manager. By the time of the trial, Mr Chong had left Benzline and he appeared at the trial as a witness for the respondents.
The second respondent, Supercars Singapore Pte Ltd (“Supercars Singapore”), is a car retailer. The first respondent, Supercars Lorinser Pte Ltd (“Supercars Lorinser”), was incorporated by the second respondent as a conduit for the intended retail sale of a specific brand of cars, which we shall discuss shortly. For convenience, we refer to them as a collective entity, “Supercars”, except where the context requires a distinction to be drawn. Supercars’ representatives were Mr Chua Yeow Kang (“Mr Chua”, also known as “Marcus”), a director of both respondents, and Mr Yu Ming Yong (“Mr Yu”), a shareholder of Supercars Singapore.
Looming large in the background of this dispute are two German entities which are not parties to these proceedings. Daimler AG (“Daimler”) is the automobile manufacturer which produces, among others, the Mercedes-Benz line of cars. It does so through subsidiaries bearing the Mercedes-Benz name, but for ease of reference, we shall refer simply to Daimler as a collective entity. One of Daimler’s customers is Sportservice Lorinser Sportliche Autoausrustung GmbH (“Lorinser”). Lorinser is in the business of customising and tuning Mercedes-Benz cars for sale to consumers. It orders Mercedes-Benz cars, modifies them using its own parts (“Lorinser car parts”), and sells the modified cars (“Lorinser cars”) under the Lorinser brand. It also sells the Lorinser car parts separately. Lorinser’s principal was Mr Marcus Lorinser and its main representative in its dealings with Benzline and Supercars was its export sales manager, Mr Evangelos Hatzikoitsis (“EH”). No witnesses from Daimler or Lorinser gave evidence in these proceedings.
What follows is a brief outline of the facts. Especially pertinent details will be explored in greater depth at the appropriate points of our analysis.
The relationship between Benzline and LorinserBenzline and Lorinser have a long history of business dealings. In 1993, Benzline was appointed the master dealer of Lorinser car parts in Singapore. In 2006, Benzline and Lorinser concluded a similar agreement in respect of Lorinser cars, and for a time Benzline actively pursued the importation and sale of Lorinser cars. Benzline’s efforts were impeded by one major obstacle: Daimler’s international consumer warranty (“the Daimler Warranty”), which in Singapore was provided through Cycle & Carriage, only applied to direct imports of Mercedes-Benz cars. Since the Lorinser cars were considered parallel imports, they were not covered by the Daimler Warranty in Singapore. This meant that any warranty would have to be provided by Benzline itself at an added fee charged to its customers, making Lorinser cars a markedly less attractive value proposition. Benzline sold about 60 Lorinser cars before abandoning the experiment in 2007. Thereafter, it continued to hold the master dealership rights, but in practice restricted itself (as far as Lorinser’s products were concerned) mainly to selling Lorinser car parts and customisation services, although it would occasionally order Lorinser cars at the special request of individual customers.
This state of affairs continued until 2013, when EH informed Mr Ng and Mr Chong that Lorinser had concluded an agreement with Daimler to extend the Daimler Warranty to Lorinser cars, provided they were sold by an authorised dealer. A dealer wishing to participate in this new arrangement (hereinafter referred to as the “Special Project”) would have to enter into a fresh agreement with Lorinser for that purpose. EH mentioned that negotiations with a possible dealer in Thailand had fallen through. He then suggested that Benzline consider applying to be Lorinser’s authorised dealer for Thailand, Malaysia, and/or Singapore for the purposes of the Special Project. Benzline was intrigued by the Special Project, but was not inclined to be the direct retailer of Lorinser cars due to its relative lack of car retail expertise and human resources. Benzline hence considered that it would be more advantageous to find another party to assume the role of sub-dealer, allowing Benzline to make some profits (essentially as a middleman) without having to develop its own retail capabilities.
Negotiations between Benzline and SupercarsIt so happened that Mr Chong and Mr Chua were neighbours and had known each other for some years. Mr Chong was aware of Mr Chua’s role in Supercars, and he decided to inform the latter of the opportunity as well as to recommend Supercars to Mr Ng. The recommendation was well received by Mr Ng, and the three men began discussions with a view toward Benzline and Supercars entering into an exclusive sub-dealership agreement for the purposes of the Special Project (“the Exclusive Sub-Dealership Agreement”). Many of these discussions involved Lorinser as well.
At least initially, Supercars was interested in being the exclusive sub-dealer of Lorinser cars in Thailand as well as Singapore. Somewhere along the way, talk of operations in Thailand petered out, and the parties focused their discussions on the Singapore market. In late 2013, the discussions appeared to be going well, and both parties were confident that the Exclusive Sub-Dealership Agreement would materialise in due course. However, the decision was not entirely in their hands as Lorinser had the power to accept or reject a proposed sub-dealer. For this among other reasons (see [29]–[30] below), the terms of the Exclusive Sub-Dealership Agreement were dependent on the terms of a new master dealership agreement between Benzline and Lorinser (“the Benzline–Lorinser Agreement”), which was to cover the Special Project. As a consequence, the parties could not attempt to finalise the Exclusive Sub-Dealership Agreement until April 2014, when the final draft of the Benzline–Lorinser Agreement was produced.
Scheduling complications and the making of the PaymentDuring this waiting period, discussions continued regarding certain orders which had to be placed with Daimler (and which therefore first had to be placed with Lorinser). Daimler expected its buyers to provide it with projected yearly orders for planning purposes (“Planning Orders”). In order to actually obtain cars, buyers would subsequently have to place monthly orders (“Purchase Orders”) accompanied by a 30% deposit on each order.
In January 2014, EH reminded the parties that if the deposit on Supercars’ first Purchase Order (“the First Purchase Order”) was not placed soon, there could be a lengthy delay in the eventual delivery of the Lorinser cars, and this would hinder Supercars’ achievement of its sales target for the year 2014. The course of their correspondence on this matter was as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Banca Intesa Sanpaolo SPA v Comune Di Venezia
...of Goff and Jones (paras 13.14–13.15) and also by the Singapore Court of Appeal in Benzline Auto Pte Ltd v Supercars Lorinser Pte Ltd [2018] 1 SLR 239, para 52 in which Judith Prakash JA observed: ‘[Although] it is usual and convenient to refer to the basis of a transfer, the reality is tha......
-
School Facility Management Ltd v Governing Body of Christ the King College
...of Goff and Jones (paras. 13.14–13.15) and also by the Singapore Court of Appeal in Benzline Auto Pte Ltd v Supercars Lorinser Pte Ltd [2018] 1 SLR 239, [52] in which Judith Prakash JA observed: “Although it is usual and convenient to refer to the basis of a transfer, the reality is that, a......
-
Ochroid Trading Ltd and another v Chua Siok Lui (trading as VIE Import & Export) and another
...usually refers to its performance (see the decision of this Court in Benzline Auto Pte Ltd v Supercars Lorinser Pte Ltd and another [2018] SGCA 2 (“Benzline”) at [49]). Some commentators and courts prefer to use the term “failure of basis” instead. While there is nothing wrong with that nom......
-
Yip Fook Chong (alias Yip Ronald) and another v Loy Wei Ezekiel and another
...Duty Claim. Unjust Enrichment Claim I now turn to the Unjust Enrichment Claim. In Benzline Auto Pte Ltd v Supercars Lorinser Pte Ltd [2018] 1 SLR 239 (at [45]), the Court of Appeal observed that the three requirements of a claim in unjust enrichment are (a) enrichment of the defendant, (b) ......
-
MANN V PATERSON CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD: THE INTERSECTION OF DEBT, DAMAGES AND QUANTUM MERUIT.
...& Co Ltd v Kensington and Chelsea Royal London Borough Council [1999] QB 215; Benzline Auto Pte Ltd v Supercars Lorinser Pte Ltd [2018] 1 SLR 239, 262 [52] (Judith Prakash JA); Frederick Wilmot-Smith, 'Reconsidering "Total" Failure' (2013) 72(2) Cambridge Law Journal 414, (149) This ter......
-
Restitution
...law to recognise partial failure of consideration.100 1 [2018] 1 SLR 363. 2 [2018] 2 SLR 655. 3 [2017] AC 467; [2016] UKSC 42. 4 [2018] 1 SLR 239. 5 Ochroid Trading Ltd v Chua Siok Lui [2018] 1 SLR 363 at [10]. 6 Cap 188, 1985 Rev Ed. 7 There was also the issue of whether the appellants suc......
-
Restitution
...Ltd v Jiacipto Jiaravanon [2019] 1 SLR 696 at [59]. 32 Simpson Marine (SEA) Pte Ltd v Jiacipto Jiaravanon [2019] 1 SLR 696 at [59]. 33 [2018] 1 SLR 239. 34 Simpson Marine (SEA) Pte Ltd v Jiacipto Jiaravanon [2019] 1 SLR 696 at [48]. 35 Simpson Marine (SEA) Pte Ltd v Jiacipto Jiaravanon [201......