JIH v JII and another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 30 June 2026
• Neutral Citation: [2026] SGSCT 19
• Parties: JIH,JII,JIJ

JIH v JII and another

[2026] SGSCT 19

Claim No 15744 of 2026

JIH

JII

JIJ

Small Claims Tribunals

Joel Tan

Commercial Transactions - Sale of goods - Sale by description

Civil Procedure - Small Claims Tribunals - Order of costs - Rule 19A(1)(a) of the Small Claims Tribunals Rules

The claimant in person

The respondents in person.

30 June 2026

Tribunal Magistrate Joel Tan:

Background

1. The claimant seeks to recover from the two respondent companies the sum of $279.04, being the purchase price paid to the first respondent (“R1”) for two basin mixer cartridges. The second respondent (“R2”) is the manufacturer of the basin mixer and its corresponding cartridges, from whom R1 procured the parts in question.

2. The material facts are not in dispute. The claimant had, at some prior point, purchased a basin mixer from a third-party seller. When the basin mixer ceased to function properly, the claimant sought to replace its cartridge. On 6 April 2026, she contacted R1 and expressly stated that she required two replacement cartridges for a particular basin mixer model, which I shall refer to as “Model 103”.

3. R1 informed the claimant that cartridges for Model 103 were not held in stock and would need to be specially ordered, with a lead time of three to four months for delivery to Singapore. The claimant elected to proceed, and R1 issued a quotation the following day for two cartridges corresponding to Model 103. The claimant accepted the quotation and paid $279.04 to R1 on that same day.

4. The cartridges arrived ahead of the initial estimated lead time and were collected on 26 May 2026. Shortly after collection, the claimant raised a concern with R1 that the cartridges appeared to be of a different size from the original cartridge installed in her basin mixer. R1 brought this concern to R2’s attention, enquiring whether the two cartridges supplied were compatible with Model 103 and raising the possibility that the factory may have packed the wrong cartridges into the box. R1 also sought confirmation as to whether, in such an event, the order could be cancelled and a refund issued down the chain—from R2 to R1, and from R1 to the claimant.

5. On 2 June 2026, R2 asked the claimant to provide a photograph of the basin mixer installed in her home. The claimant was unhappy with this request, having already provided R2 with a catalogue photograph of Model 103. Nonetheless, she complied, and the photograph revealed that the unit installed in her home was not Model 103 at all, but a visually similar yet distinct model which I shall refer to as “Model 603”. It emerged that the claimant had mistakenly believed her unit to be Model 103, based on the invoice provided to her by the third-party seller who had originally supplied the basin mixer. Frustrated by this turn of events, the claimant commenced the present claim before the Small Claims Tribunals (the “SCT”) the very next day.

Decision

6. Based on the evidence before me, I can discern no legally recognised wrongdoing on the part of either respondent. The contract between the claimant and R1 was one for the sale of goods by description—the description being the corresponding cartridge for basin mixer Model 103. That description was furnished by the claimant herself, drawn from the model information she had received from the third-party seller.

7. Acting on the description provided, R1 procured and supplied from R2 the cartridges corresponding to Model 103. The goods delivered were precisely what had been ordered. R1 had no independent basis upon which to verify or question the model information provided by the...