Sintalow Hardware Pte Ltd v OSK Engineering Pte Ltd
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Sundaresh Menon CJ |
Judgment Date | 27 April 2017 |
Neutral Citation | [2017] SGCA 33 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Wendell Wong, Denise Teo and Valerie Goh (Drew & Napier LLC) |
Date | 27 April 2017 |
Docket Number | Civil Appeal No 83 of 2016 |
Hearing Date | 20 January 2017 |
Subject Matter | Misrepresentation,Formation,Contract |
Published date | 05 May 2017 |
Defendant Counsel | Andrew Ang, Andrea Tan and David Marc Lee (PK Wong & Associates LLC) |
Court | Court of Appeal (Singapore) |
Citation | [2017] SGCA 33 |
Year | 2017 |
This is an appeal by Sintalow Hardware Pte Ltd (“Sintalow”) against the decision of the High Court judge (“the Judge”) in Suit No 662 of 2012 (“S 662/2012”). The respondent is OSK Engineering Pte Ltd (“OSK”). The Judge’s judgment is reported as
The disputes between the parties arose from a series of agreements for the supply of sanitary ware to a large building project by Sintalow to OSK. Essentially, the disputes are concerned with the parties' contractual rights and obligations under these agreements. The background to the disputes is described below.
Background to the disputesSintalow is the exclusive distributor in Singapore for several types of pipes, pipe-fittings and valves for sanitary and plumbing works (“Products”). Its managing director is Mr Chew Kong Huat, also known as Johnny Chew (“Chew”).1 OSK is a plumbing, sanitary and gas works contractor. It is owned by Mr Tan Yeo Kee, the managing director, and his wife, Mdm Oh Swee Kit (“Mdm Oh” or “Mrs Tan”), the general manager.2
In May 2007, OSK informed Sintalow that it would be submitting a tender for a sanitary and plumbing contract in relation to the Marina Bay Sands Project (“MBS Project”). OSK requested Sintalow to provide details of its Products.3 Sintalow sent OSK its May 2007 price list for the Products in a letter dated 18 May 2007 which set out the following terms:4
Sintalow claimed that in or around June 2007, it was given an overall bill of quantity (“June 2007 BQ”) showing the kinds and quantities of sanitary and plumbing wares which OSK would require for the MBS Project. Sintalow studied the June 2007 BQ and concluded that the total value of the Products required for the MBS Project would be between S$7m and S$8m (including products for which Sintalow was not a supplier).5 OSK denied it gave the June 2007 BQ to Sintalow.6
After further inquiries from OSK, Sintalow provided OSK with price quotations for some of the Products on 16 August 20077 and 25 August 2007.8
In or about September 2007, OSK was appointed the subcontractor for the plumbing works for the MBS Project.9 On 18 September 2007, OSK and Sintalow met to discuss the terms on which Sintalow would supply the Products to OSK (“the 18 September 2007 meeting”).
Following the 18 September 2007 meeting, Sintalow faxed a letter dated 22 September 2007 to OSK (“Sintalow’s September letter”) to confirm the special discount rates on certain specified materials as follows:10
We refer to our meeting on Tuesday, 18 September 2007, at your office with regard to the piping material for the abovementioned project.
As we have discussed and agreed, the “special discount rates” are as follows:
Further, we have also agreed that the special discount rates are only valid and existing subject to the inclusion of the following products as part of
the entire package/order :
Due to the worldwide raw materials increases and bigger quantities required for this project, we would appreciate if you would kindly let us have your letter of confirmation of the above order as soon as possible. Also, this is so that we are able to lock-in the best prices with our manufacturers.
[emphasis added in italics]
It is pertinent to note the following points in this letter:
Further meetings between the parties took place between September and November 2007. On 2 October 2007, OSK sent to Sintalow a handwritten bill of quantity for the valves it required for the MBS Project.11 On 18 October 2007, OSK sent to Sintalow a bill of quantity for Fusiotherm PPR and Duker Hubless products. This was accompanied by what appeared to be a set of draft terms and conditions:12
On 15 November 2007, Sintalow sent to OSK a quotation with the reference “SH/JCJ/sy/Q1733R2/07” for the valves needed by OSK for the MBS Project (“the Valves Quotation”).13 OSK accepted this quotation which was subject to the following terms:14
TOTAL AMOUNT: S$645,615.25.
PRICE: PRICE QUOTED ARE NETT IN SINGAPORE DOLLARS EXCLUDE GST AND ARE SUBJECT TO TOTAL PACKAGE ORDER.
TERM OF PAYMENT: 30 DAYS.
DELIVERY: PARTIALLY EX-STOCK, BALANCE 2-3 MONTHSUPON ORDER CONFIRMATION.
VALIDITY: 14 DAYS.
REMARKS: SUBJECT TO OUR FINAL CONFIRMATION OF ORDER.
Both parties signed this quotation. Chew signed beneath the sentence:
WE LOOK FORWARD TO RECEIVE YOUR ORDER.
Mdm Oh (as Mrs Tan) signed and dated it 21 November 2007 beneath the sentence:
WE, OSK ENRGR PTE LTD CONFIRM THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED ORDER.
On 21 November 2007, OSK and Sintalow signed a letter on OSK’s letterhead (“OSK’s November letter”) which contained the following: 15
Dear Sir/Madam
[emphases in original]
We note the following points about OSK’s November letter:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
CIMB Bank Bhd v World Fuel Services (Singapore) Pte Ltd and another appeal
...the applicable contract document for each of the sales by Panoil to WFS. Relying on Sintalow Hardware Pte Ltd v OSK Engineering Pte Ltd [2017] 2 SLR 372 (“Sintalow”), the Judge concluded that Clause 8.2 had superseded the 2014 Offset Agreement. His reasons were stated thus: 127 In Sintalow ......
-
CIMB Bank Bhd v World Fuel Services (Singapore) Pte Ltd
...right under cl 8.2 supersedes any rights of set-off under these contracts. In Sintalow Hardware Pte Ltd v OSK Engineering Pte Ltd [2017] 2 SLR 372 (“Sintalow”), the parties signed a letter containing general terms and conditions for the purchase of sanitary ware (“the Master Contract”). The......
-
Sintalow Hardware Pte Ltd v OSK Engineering Pte Ltd
...Pte Ltd [2016] SGHC 104 (“the HC Judgment”) and by the Court of Appeal in Sintalow Hardware Pte Ltd v OSK Engineering Pte Ltd [2017] 2 SLR 372 (“the CA Judgment”). This judgment deals with the dispute as to quantum. Sintalow sued OSK for breach of contract. Sintalow’s case was that the part......
-
Contract Law
...17 [2018] 3 SLR 70. 18 [2008] 3 SLR(R) 1029. 19 Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed. 20 [2017] SGHC 227. 21 [2018] 1 SLR 180. 22 [2017] 2 SLR 627. 23 [2017] 2 SLR 372. 24 Centre for Laser and Aesthetic Medicine Pte Ltd v GPK Clinic (Orchard) Pte Ltd [2018] 1 SLR 180 at [27]. 25 Centre for Laser and Aesthet......