Brani Readymixed Pte Ltd v Yee Hong Pte Ltd and Another Appeal
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judgment Date | 01 December 1994 |
Date | 01 December 1994 |
Docket Number | Civil Appeals Nos 52 of 1994 |
Court | Court of Appeal (Singapore) |
[1994] SGCA 138
M Karthigesu JA
,
LP Thean JA
and
Chao Hick Tin J
Civil Appeals Nos 52 of 1994 and 53 of 1994
Court of Appeal
Building and Construction Law–Termination–Repudiation of contract–Whether defendant's failure to give schedule for supply of concrete would amount to repudiation–Whether defendant's mere failure or delay in making payment per se would amount to repudiation–Contract–Discharge–Breach–Whether defendant's conduct amounted to repudiation of contract–Contract–Remedies–Damages–Computation of quantum of damages
The defendant was a building contractor and it entered into a contract with the plaintiff who was a supplier of ready-mixed concrete for the supply of ready-mixed concrete. It was a term of the contract that the defendant was required to provide casting schedule for the whole project. However, the defendant had always placed orders of concrete by way of memoranda. In particular, the defendant sent various memorandums for orders of concrete to the plaintiff on 6 and 7 May 1991 but the plaintiff did not deliver any ready-mixed concrete in fulfilment of any of these orders. From 11 May 1991, no further orders were placed. On 7 June 1991, the plaintiff wrote to the defendant demanding payment of the sum of $278,969.00 which the defendant did not pay. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff had failed to fulfil its contractual obligation in supplying the ready-mixed concrete diligently and proceeded to source for concrete from alternative suppliers. The plaintiff in turn claimed that the defendant had failed to give it a proper advance casting schedule and failed to make payment thereby repudiating the contract. The plaintiff sued for damages for breach of contract and the defendant counterclaimed for damages for breach of contract. The trial judge found that the defendant had intended to terminate the contract, but the plaintiff had affirmed the contract and subsequently wrongly repudiated the contract although the damages suffered by the defendant did not flow from the repudiation. Accordingly, he dismissed both the claim and the counterclaim. Both parties appealed.
Held, allowing the plaintiff's appeal and dismissing the defendant's:
(1) As the plaintiff was able to supply concrete for nine months without a casting schedule, the failure by the defendant to provide this schedule did not amount to repudiation of the contract: at [17].
(2) The mere failure or delay in making payment by the defendant per se would not amount to repudiation: at [17].
(3) The evidence clearly supported the conclusion that by 7 June 1991, the defendant had clearly evinced an intention not to be bound by the contract: at [14], [15] and [16].
(4) The defendant was not merely stalling for time to make payment to the plaintiff, it did not intend to pay the plaintiff at all and perform the contract. It had not placed any order for supply of concrete with the plaintiff since 11 May 1991 and had been obtaining its supplies from Rite-mix. It was clearly in breach of contract, and by its conduct it had by then repudiated the contract, and the plaintiff accepted the repudiation by the letter of 7 June 1991. Accordingly, the plaintiff's appeal was allowed: at [16] and [18].
(5) As the trial judge was not in error when computing the quantum of damages, the Court of Appeal was not disposed to disturb the assessment: at [20].
(6) As the defendant was in breach of contract, it followed that the counterclaim against the plaintiff must fail and the defendant's appeal dismissed: at [21].
George Lim (Wee Tay & Lim) for the appellant in Civil Appeal No 52 of 1994 and for the respondent in Civil Appeal No 53 of 1994
Lee Mun Hooi and Tan Li Cheng (Lee Bon Leong & Co) for the respondent in CA 52/1994 and for the appellant in CA 53/1994.
(delivering the grounds of judgment of the court):
1 These were two appeals from the decision of the High Court in which both the claim of the plaintiffs for damages for breach of contract and the counterclaim of the defendants also for damages for breach of contract were dismissed. The first appeal, CA 52/94, was initiated by the plaintiffs and the second appeal, CA 53/94 by the defendants. We allowed the plaintiffs' appeal and gave judgment to them in the sum of $50,000 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the writ and also with costs, and dismissed the defendants' appeal with costs. We now give our reasons.
The facts
2 The material facts that gave rise to the appeals were these. The defendants were building contractors, and were engaged by the Port of Singapore Authority (“PSA”) to build a service complex at Brani Terminal, Pulau Brani, in July 1990. The plaintiffs were suppliers of ready-mixed concrete. By an agreement in writing dated 27 September 1990 (“the contract”), the plaintiffs agreed to supply and deliver to the defendants a quantity of ready-mixed concrete over a specified period. Several amendments to the terms of the contract were subsequently made and agreed to by the parties. The final terms, in so far as material, were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Comfort Resources Pte Ltd v Alliance Concrete Singapore Pte Ltd and another suit
...contract by its continuous and persistent under-orders of sand from the seller: at [118]. Brani Readymixed Pte Ltd v Yee Hong Pte Ltd [1994] 3 SLR (R) 1004; [1995] 1 SLR 205 (refd) Browne v Dunn [1893] 6 R 67 (folld) Decro-Wall International SA v Practitioners in Marketing Ltd [1971] 1 WLR ......
-
Kool Team Marketing v Pacific Sunwear Pte Ltd
...when the claimant is itself in breach. He cited the decision of the Court of Appeal in Brani Readymixed Pte Ltd v Yee Hong Pte Ltd [1995] 1SLR 205 in support of that proposition. I note that the headnote of that report seems to suggest this. However there is no such proposition to be found ......
-
Chua Tian Chu and another v Chin Bay Ching and another
...the party evince an intention no longer to be bound by the contract’. [emphasis added] In Brani Readymixed Pte Ltd v Yee Hong Pte Ltd [1994] 3 SLR(R) 1004 , the Court of Appeal affirmed the common law position that the mere failure or delay in making payment per se would not amount to a rep......
-
LED Linear (Asia) Pte Ltd v Krislite Pte Ltd
...problems with these lights. In this context, it is worth noting that in Brani Readymixed Pte Ltd v Yee Hong Pte Ltd and another appeal [1994] 3 SLR(R) 1004, the Court of Appeal made it plain (at [18]) that the mere failure or delay in making payment per se would not amount to a repudiation ......
-
Building and Construction Law
...of non-payment by the main contractor. Woo Bih Li JC followed the Court of Appeal decision in Brani Readymixed Pte Ltd v Yee Hong Pte Ltd[1995] 1 SLR 205 in recognising that mere failure to pay or delay in making payment does not of itself amount to a repudiation. Woo JC focused on the cond......