Koh Wee Meng v Trans Eurokars Pte Ltd
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judge | Judith Prakash J |
| Judgment Date | 27 May 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] SGHC 104 |
| Court | High Court (Singapore) |
| Hearing Date | 26 March 2013,09 January 2013,10 January 2013,27 March 2013,31 July 2013,08 January 2013,15 January 2013,07 January 2013,11 January 2013 |
| Docket Number | Suit No 873 of 2011 |
| Plaintiff Counsel | Davinder Singh SC, Jaikanth Shankar, Lim Chingwen and Samantha Tan (Drew & Napier LLC) |
| Defendant Counsel | Tan Chee Meng SC, Josephine Choo and Quek Kian Teck (WongPartnership LLP) |
| Subject Matter | Contract,Contractual terms,Sale of Goods Act,Equity,Defences,Acquiescence,Remedies,Liquidated damages,Mitigation of damage |
| Published date | 03 June 2014 |
On 23 December 2008, the plaintiff, Dr Koh Wee Meng, took delivery of a “Christmas present” – a Rolls-Royce Phantom SWB automobile (“the Rolls”) – from the defendant, Trans Eurokars Pte Ltd. On Christmas Day itself, the plaintiff took his new car out for a spin. In the course of the drive, he made a three-point turn. As he moved forward out of the turn, and while he was turning the steering wheel, he heard “a loud moaning noise” and also felt a significant vibration from the steering wheel. On 26 December 2008, the plaintiff took the car back to the defendant’s premises and explained his problems with it to the defendant’s staff. He asked them to make sure that the noise and vibration problem was fixed.
That was the start of a whole series of visits by the plaintiff and the Rolls to the defendant’s premises and of a series of actions taken by the defendant in respect of the Rolls. These interactions have culminated in the present proceedings. Briefly, the plaintiff’s position is that the Rolls is defective and because of the defect, the defendant is in breach of its obligation to supply a vehicle of satisfactory quality. He claims substantial damages for this breach of contract.
As far as the defendant is concerned, the Rolls was always of satisfactory quality and it had completely fulfilled all its obligations to the plaintiff. It had diligently attended to the plaintiff’s complaint but had not been able to detect the defect complained of. It asserts that any noise and vibration experienced by the plaintiff when moving the Rolls out of a three-point turn are normal for a Rolls-Royce automobile of this model.
The issues that arise are:
The defendant is a dealer in motor vehicles and is the authorised dealer in Singapore for Rolls-Royce automobiles. Its principal is Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Limited (“Rolls-Royce”), the manufacturer of these automobiles. The Rolls belongs to a line of vehicles made by Rolls-Royce known as the “Phantom” model. In the course of the proceedings various comparison cars were examined by the experts. All belonged to the Phantom range and will be referred to as “Phantoms” where necessary.
On 8 August 2008, the plaintiff entered into a Vehicle Sales Agreement (“VSA”) with the defendant. By the VSA, the plaintiff agreed to buy the Rolls from the defendant for the amount of $1,407,150. The plaintiff regarded the Rolls as a prestigious vehicle that was extremely high-end and which could give its users a high degree of comfort and ease of handling. He wanted a car with an outward and interior appearance and performance that he could take pride in.
The Rolls was collected by the plaintiff on 23 December 2008. When he returned to the defendant’s premises on 26 December 2008, he complained to Mr Derrick Ng (“Mr Ng”), the defendant’s workshop supervisor, and to one Ms Carena Chen, about the noise and vibration experienced when the steering wheel was at or near the “full-lock” position. The plaintiff made the same complaint two days later to Mr Wong Chin Yong (“Mr Wong”) who was then the defendant’s After-Sales Manager. Mr Wong assured the plaintiff that the defendant would look into the complaint. The Rolls was left with the defendant and returned to the plaintiff on 29 December 2008.
The plaintiff alleged that despite what had been done to the Rolls in December 2008, the noise and vibration were not rectified but got worse. He asserted that when he complained, the defendant told him to drive the car and get used to it. He did so but the problem persisted over the next four months.
In April 2009, the plaintiff asked his solicitor, Mr Denis Ong (“Mr Ong”), to help him handle the problem. On 30 April 2009, a meeting took place between the plaintiff, Mr Ong and the defendant’s representatives. According to Mr Ong’s letter of the same date, at the meeting Mr Wong had informed the plaintiff that he would speak to Rolls-Royce in the United Kingdom (“UK”) concerning the plaintiff’s complaint and would revert with the defendant’s advice and proposal regarding rectification of the problem.
Subsequently, an appointment was arranged for Mr George Rowlands (“Mr Rowlands”), the Rolls-Royce Asia Pacific After-Sales Manager, to inspect the Rolls. This inspection took place on 13 May 2009. According to the plaintiff, he drove Mr Rowlands and Mr Wong in the Rolls and demonstrated the problem with the car. Mr Wong’s recollection, however, was that the Rolls was driven by Mr Ng of the defendant. Mr Ong’s letter of the same date to the defendant confirmed that he understood that Mr Rowlands had put a process in place to deal with the plaintiff’s complaint and would be taking advice on the problem from Rolls-Royce’s head office after which he would revert.
On 15 May 2009, Mr Rowlands sent an e-mail to Mr Ong, stating that Rolls-Royce would be arranging for additional investigations and works to be carried out on the Rolls to resolve the plaintiff’s complaint. Power steering pipes were arranged to be flown into Singapore and the investigation works were focused on the hydraulic portion of the power steering system.
On 26 May 2009, after arrival of the new pipes, the Rolls was left at the defendant’s premises. Rectification works were carried out on the Rolls and parts were replaced. On 30 May 2009, the plaintiff complained that despite the work, the problem with the Rolls persisted and had become worse. In response, Mr Rowlands wrote that he shared in the plaintiff’s disappointment that the noise had reappeared. He promised to speak to Rolls-Royce’s engineers about it and asked Mr Ong to confirm that “the noise/vibration is of the nature that I experienced”. Mr Ong confirmed the next day that the noise/vibration of the Rolls remained the same as shown to Mr Rowlands by the plaintiff. Two days later, on 4 June 2009, Mr Rowlands informed Mr Ong that the steering rack in the Rolls needed to be replaced and the part was expected to be in Singapore the following week. Subsequently, on 13 June 2009, the defendant fitted new parts to the car and did a re-alignment check as well.
On 25 June 2009, Mr Ong reported that the noise and vibration persisted. Replying the same day, Mr Rowlands asked for a session at which he and Mr Wong could test drive the Rolls with the plaintiff. This test drive took place on 29 June 2009. The Rolls was driven by Mr Ng, with Mr Wong and Mr Rowlands in the car. The plaintiff was not present. After the test drive, Mr Rowlands wrote to Mr Ong informing him that they had not been able to clearly identify any noise despite driving the Rolls for almost an hour. Mr Rowlands wanted to conduct another test drive in the plaintiff’s presence but the plaintiff did not see any point in replying to Mr Rowlands since it was clear to him that there was a noise and vibration defect.
On 20 July 2009, Mr Wong sent an e-mail to Mr Ong to arrange for further testing of the power steering noise on 22 July 2009. The plaintiff agreed to give the defendant one last opportunity to resolve the problem. If it could not be resolved, he wanted the defendant to take back the Rolls and refund all money paid by him.
On 28 July 2009, a further wheel alignment check was carried out and the power steering pump was replaced. An oil carrier and two return pipes were also fitted to the Rolls with a further expansion hose, a suction pipe and another set of mountings. The steering rack also appeared to have been replaced. However, to the plaintiff’s disappointment, the noise and vibration remained.
On 3 August 2009, the defendant was informed that the plaintiff was seeking an independent assessment of the problem with his car. The plaintiff demanded a written report on what steps had been taken by the defendant already and what other steps were to be taken to rectify the problem.
On 7 August 2009, Mr Rowlands informed Mr Ong that he wanted to test drive the vehicle again and had arranged for technicians from Germany and from the UK to attend to the Rolls. This test drive took place on 3 and 4 September 2009. The persons involved were Mr Rowlands, Mr Ng, Mr Wong and Mr Alexander Uphoff (“Mr Uphoff”) of ZF Lenksysteme GmbH (“ZF”), the German supplier of the power steering system. The tests were conducted by Mr Uphoff who examined the steering component of the Rolls by comparing it against a comparison Phantom. The cars were tested whilst performing the three-point turn on the tiled surface of the workshop floor and on dry asphalt road and the results were measured in accordance with the
Mr Uphoff testified that on this occasion he did not detect any “noise” and “vibration” which constituted a defect. He also concluded that there was no defect whatsoever in the steering system of the Rolls. In his written report given to Rolls-Royce on 6 September 2009 (“the ZF Report”), he did state that the Rolls had “showed low-frequency noise and vibration on the steering wheel when performing a three-point turn or steering lock-to-lock while rolling”.
Mr Uphoff considered that the noise and vibration he observed was the result of the “stick-slip effect” between the wheels and the road surface which was inevitable for any motor vehicle. No improvement of this noise and vibration was possible unless there was a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Koh Wee Meng v Trans Eurokars Pte Ltd
...Wee Meng Plaintiff and Trans Eurokars Pte Ltd Defendant [2014] SGHC 104 Judith Prakash J Suit No 873 of 2011 High Court Commercial Transactions—Sale of goods—Breach of contract—Damages for breach of contract—Seller sold luxury car to buyer—Buyer complained of noise and vibration—Subsequent ......