Mattioli Patrizio v SG Car Choices 2 Pte ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lee Li Choon
• Judgment Date: 30 October 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] SGDC 222
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Hearing Date: 30 October 2019
• Docket Number: Suit No 1470 of 2018
• Plaintiff Counsel: Nandwani Manoj Prakash (Messrs Gabriel Law Corporation)
• Defendant Counsel: Tan Chen Xing (Messrs Yeo-Leong & Peh LLC)
• Subject Matter: Sale of Goods,section 13 Sale of Goods Act,description of goods,section 14 Sale of Goods Act,satisfactory quality of goods,section 12B of the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act
• Published date: 18 March 2020

District Judge Lee Li Choon: Background

The Defendant (“D”) is a company in the business of the sale of used vehicles. The Plaintiff (“P”) bought a used BMW 6 Series 640i Coupe (“the car”) from D on 12 March 2018 for the sum of S$127,000.

In this suit, P is claiming the sum of $8,386.00 in respect of the replacement of the alleged defective parts of the car and the sum of $1429.00 in respect of repair works with respect to the car that were undertaken at P’s own expense. The claim for these sums is on the basis that D has breached the condition of sale implied by operation of sections 14(2), 14(2A) and 14(2B) of the Sale of Goods Act (“SOGA”) in that the car was not of satisfactory quality. P also alleged that the car was not in roadworthy condition to be driven safely on the roads and was unfit for the purpose for which it was purchased. In addition, it is also P’s case that there was a breach of the implied condition that the car would correspond to its description and by virtue of that, P alleges that D has breached section 13(1) SOGA.

Additionally, P is also seeking to rescind the sale and purchase contract pursuant to section 12B of the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act (“CPFTA”).

P’s claim is based on the following alleged defects of the car: That the car had worn out rear brakes which could only last 180km and are in need of repairs; That the car came with failure of the front left headlights; That there was leakage of oil from the engine gaskets; That there was leakage of oil from the time belt; and That the remote control key was faulty.

The relevant chronology of events is as follows:

12 March 2018	P viewed and test-drove the car. After that, P purchased the car from D.
15 March 2018	The car was delivered to P. P raised the issue regarding the sunroof. D’s mechanic rectified the sunroof issue. P said he had indicated to D’s Roy Sng the issue with regard to the front left headlights at the time of delivery of the car. However, D disputes this fact.
17 March 2018	P signed the Vehicle Assessment Form and Hire Purchase Financing Form. It is not disputed that P wanted to indicate on the Vehicle Assessment Form the issue with regard to the front left headlights. The Performance Motors Limited Key Data Printout (“PMKD Printout”) on the car was generated on this date. It is to be noted however that the maker of this PMKD Report has not been called to give evidence on this Report.
19 March 2018	P drove the car to ICAR Motorwerkz Pte Ltd and he informed them that the left headlight was not working. Representative at ICAR Motorwerkz recommended that the headlamp be changed. As it was late in the day, P was told to bring the car down again the next day.
20 March 2018	P brought the car to ICAR Motorwerkz again. P was present at ICAR Motorwerkz while the car was being repaired. After the repairs to the left headlight, P tested the headlight and drove off.
23 March 2018	P contacted Justin Junwei Charles of ICAR Motorwerkz to say that he wanted to change or improve the car’s brake pads, as they were too soft. Eventually, the car’s brake pads were replaced on this day.
26 March 2018	Pursuant to P’s further complaints about the left headlight, Justin Junwei Charles of ICAR Motorwerkz went to P’s place of residence to pick up the car to drive the car back to ICAR Motorwerkz’ workshop for testing. The operation of the headlights was tested for about 10 times. As the headlights were found to be working, the car was driven back to P’s place of residence and returned to P on the same day.
(a few days later)	P called ICAR Motorwerkz and complained that the left headlight was not working. However, there was no further follow-up on this.
9 April 2018	P sent the car to Performance Motors Limited for another assessment. Another Performance Motors Limited Key Data Printout (“PMKD Printout”) was generated the next day.

Subsequent to 9 April 2018, P had allegedly sent the car for further “repairs” a few more times. P is relying on his repair job requests with dates ranging from 13 April 2018 to 13 November 2018 and the Performance Motors Limited Key Data Printout (“PMKD Printout”) generated on the following dates – 16 April 2018, 21 May 2018, 19 June 2018, 28 August 2018 and 13 November 2018 to establish his case. While copies of these PMKD Printouts were adduced through P’s affidavit of evidence in chief, there was no explanation as to the contents of these PMKD Printouts in his affidavit, nor was the maker of these documents or any expert witness called to render evidence on the contents of these documents.

Relevant Issues In This Case

P’s claim is brought on the basis of breach of the implied terms that the car will correspond with its description as required under section 13 of SOGA, that the car is of satisfactory quality and fitness of purpose as imposed under section 14 of the SOGA; and on the basis that the car did not conform to the contract for sale at the time of delivery under section 12B CPFTA. Accordingly, the issues are: Whether the car corresponds with the description at the time of sale Whether D has breached the implied term that the car was of satisfactory quality and fitness of purpose at the time of delivery for the purposes of section 14 of the SOGA Whether the car conforms to the contract for sale at the time of delivery.

My Decision Whether the car corresponds with the description at the time of sale

Section 13(1) of the SOGA provides, “(1) Where there is a contract for the sale of goods by description, there is an implied condition that the goods will correspond with the description.”

The evidence shows that P came to know of the sale of the car through an online advertisement at the website www.sgcarmart.com on or around 12 March 2018. In that advertisement, the car was described as “perfect condition”; “well maintained by previous owner with all wear and tear done up” and “low mileage”¹. P also says that he recalls that at the time of the advertisement, the mileage was stated as 42,000km. P says he relied on these descriptions including the description of “low mileage” and was induced thereby into buying the car. Subsequently, through the PMKD Printout dated 17 March 2018², he discovered that the mileage shows “48,127 kilometres”. P also alluded to the fact that the STA Inspection Pte Ltd Report dated 24 November 2017 (this date was before P purchased the car) states the mileage as follows - “Mileage (Before Evaluation): 44844 KM”.³

Though P said he recalls the mileage was stated as 42,000km, he has tendered no evidence to show that the mileage of the car was stated by D to be 42,000km. A copy of the online advertisement as extracted on 31 March 2018 (about two weeks after P took delivery of the car) shows that the car was described as, “perfect condition”; “well maintained by previous owner with all wear and tear done up” and “low mileage”⁴. There was no specific statement about the mileage of the car. Thus, regarding the description that the mileage of the car was 42,000kim, other than P’s mere allegation, there is nothing in support of P’s allegation that the car’s mileage was stated to be 42,000km.

P does not dispute that he had inspected the car at D’s showroom on 12 March 2018 and had also test-driven the Car⁵. Thus, P had purchased the car after a physical inspection of the car and a test drive of the car. During the physical inspection, P would have seen the mileage of the car from the car’s mileage odometer. If indeed, there was a statement about the car being of 42,000km mileage when the mileage in the car mileage odometer shows a higher mileage, it would be logical for P to have raised this issue before the purchase. However, there is no such evidence or any evidence to show that the actual mileage shown in the car mileage odometer was different from the stated mileage.

As the overall burden of proof falls on P to prove his case on a balance of probabilities, on this description of the car having only a 42,000km mileage, I find that P has failed to show that the car was sold to him with that description. Therefore, P has failed to prove that the car did not correspond with the alleged description of 42,000 mileage, as there is no evidence that there was such a description.

In addition to the general descriptions - “perfect condition”; “well maintained by previous owner with all wear and tear done up” and “low mileage”, I note that based on the online advertisement of the car (as extracted on 31 March 2018), at the top right hand corner, there was a section titled, “STA Evaluation” and it was stated there that - “This vehicle has undergone a 120-point check by STA, and has received a Grade B for its overall condition.” This description conforms to the STA Evaluation Report (dated 24 November 2017) on the car⁶. The general descriptions - “perfect condition”; “well maintained by previous owner with all wear and tear done up” and “low mileage” in the online advertisement are to be read and understood in that context, that is, the vehicle has received a STA Grade B for...