Metro (Pte) Ltd and Another v Wormald Security (SEA) Pte Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: T Kulasekaram J
• Judgment Date: 18 June 1981
• Neutral Citation: [1981] SGHC 12
• Docket Number: Suit No 3073 of 1976
• Date: 18 June 1981
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1981
• Plaintiff Counsel: Henry Hangchi and Yeo Kee Chin (Yeo Kee Chin & Co)
• Citation: [1981] SGHC 12
• Defendant Counsel: Harry Elias and Goh Joon Seng (Drew & Napier)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Reliance by defendants on exemption clause,Exclusion clauses,Non-repudiation of contract by plaintiffs,Contractual terms,Contract,Dispute as to liability,Clause wide enough to cover breach

The plaintiff`s claim in this action is for damages from the defendants for loss they had suffered arising from a breach of a service contract they had with him.

The case for the plaintiffs is briefly this. They are the owners of a three stories department store in Beach Road known as `Metro` group department stores hereinafter referred to as `the said premises` and the defendants supply security alarm systems and also undertake the installation, maintenance and manning of these alarm systems for the detection of any unauthorised breaking into or out of the premises to minimize thefts or other damage to goods in the premises. By an `Installation and Service Agreement` dated 26 June 1974 made between Metro Holdings Ltd for and on behalf of the plaintiffs, referred to as `the customer` of the one part and the defendants, as `the company`, of the other part, the defendants agreed for a consideration of a fixed price of $7,086 as installation charges and a service fee of $175 per month to instal in the said premises a security alarm system and to maintain and man the same for an initial period of twelve months. A copy of this agreement is the document AB12-13. One of the obligations that the defendants undertook to perform under this agreement was that provided by cl 4(ii) of the agreement and reads:

Control room services. Upon receipt of an alarm signal at the company`s control room which is not identified by code as an authorised entry into the customer`s premises the company will carry out the following service procedures:

(i) ...

(ii) where no keys to the customer`s premises are held by the company the customer or such person as the customer has nominated for this purpose will be notified as quickly as possible and if the customer wishes the police will be notified of the customer`s anticipated time of arrival at the premises.

It is not in dispute that none of the keys to the said premises were held by the defendants. In pursuance of cl 4(ii) the plaintiffs had nominated and informed the defendants by letter dated 4 November 1974, AB1-2, that in case of any emergency or other matters relating to the operation of the security alarm system anyone of the five persons named therein by them should be notified by the defendants.

The security alarm system envisaged under this agreement was duly installed on the said premises by November 1974 and thereafter the parties had started operating the alarm system. The evidence was that when the department store closed for business on the evening of 2 February 1975 at 10pm the normal procedures were observed to ensure that all the customers had left the store. The management also toured the store, floor by floor, to see that all the doors were locked and secured and the merchandise in the store was kept away arranged in an orderly manner. All valuable merchandise were locked up in show cases. They then initiated the alarm system and left the premises for the night. What was done that night was the normal routine procedure adopted every night at the close of business for the day.

The next morning when the management entered the store as usual to get the store ready for the commencement of business for that day they discovered that the store had been broken into and a large quantity of valuable merchandise consisting mainly of watches, cigarette lighters and pens, most of which items had been locked up in show cases were missing from the ground floor of the premises. The plaintiffs claimed that the value of goods lost that night amounted to $144,918.35. However during the course of the hearing the parties had agreed amongst themselves that the quantum of the value of goods lost be fixed at $108,756.67.

At the outset of the hearing of this case the defendants admitted that on the night of second towards the early hours of the morning of 3 February 1975 the defendants upon receiving the alarm signals concerning the said premises in their control room had failed to notify the plaintiffs or, if need be, the police also about them. In the circumstances they agreed they were in clear breach of cl 4(ii) of the Installation & Service Agreement AB12. The plaintiffs too on their part had admitted that upon such a breach by the defendants, they (the plaintiffs) had not elected to...