Sintalow Hardware Pte Ltd v OSK Engineering Pte Ltd
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Lai Siu Chiu SJ |
Judgment Date | 09 December 2019 |
Neutral Citation | [2019] SGHC 286 |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Docket Number | Suit No 662 of 2012 |
Year | 2019 |
Published date | 21 January 2020 |
Hearing Date | 04 June 2019,08 August 2019,06 June 2019,03 June 2019 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Wong Wendell, Ang Xin Yi Felicia and Teo Ying Ying Denise (Drew & Napier LLC) |
Defendant Counsel | Andrew Ang Chee Kwang, Tan Jin Jia Andrea and David Marc Lee (PK Wong & Associates LLC) |
Citation | [2019] SGHC 286 |
This case concerned a dispute between the parties over the supply of pipes, valves and other plumbing fittings (“the Products”) to OSK Engineering Pte Ltd (“OSK”) from Sintalow Hardware Pte Ltd (“Sintalow”) for installation in the Marina Bay Sands hotel project (“the MBS Project”) in 2007. The dispute as to liability has been dealt with by the High Court in
Sintalow sued OSK for breach of contract. Sintalow’s case was that the parties’ relationship was governed by what it called a Total Package Agreement (“TPA”) under which Sintalow agreed to give OSK special discounts on the Products in consideration of OSK’s commitment to purchase at least S$5m worth of the Products. The TPA was partly oral and partly written.
OSK’s case on the other hand was that the parties’ contractual obligations were governed by OSK’s letter dated 21 November 2007 (termed the “Master Contract” by the trial judge).
After a lengthy trial, the trial judge found in favour of Sintalow and held that the Master Contract governed the parties’ relationship. The court also found that OSK had not accepted three separate quotations for the Products based on various bills of quantities for the stated quantities, prices, terms and conditions (“the Products Agreements”). It was further held that OSK did not make representations to Sintalow as to the minimum value of the Products that it would purchase from Sintalow.
Judgment was awarded to Sintalow on 25 May 2016 in the following terms (see the HC Judgment at [133]):
With regards to the three matters referred to at [5(b)] above, OSK’s three letters dated 7 March 2008, 23 May 2008 and 8 May 2008 and Sintalow’s quotation dated 3 March 2008, were presented in court in volume 1 of the Agreed Bundle of Documents.
Sintalow appealed against the HC Judgment in Civil Appeal No 83 of 2016 (“the Appeal”) against the following findings made by the trial judge:
On 27 April 2017, the Appeal was allowed in part by the Court of Appeal (see the CA Judgment). The appellate court held,
The task of this court was to assess the damages awarded to Sintalow under the HC Judgment as varied by the CA Judgment.
The assessment hearingFor the assessment of damages, there were three witnesses called by the parties. Sintalow’s only witness was its managing director, Chew Kong Huat (also known as Johnny Chew) (“Chew”). In the trial on liability, Chew had also testified for Sintalow. OSK’s witnesses were its general manager, Madam Oh Swee Kit (“Mdm Oh”), who is the wife of its managing director, Tan Yeo Kee, as well as its deputy general manager, Chay Ann Ling (“Chay”).
Sintalow’s caseIn his affidavit of evidence-in-chief (“AEIC”), Chew claimed the following sums from OSK:
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
As an alternative to the $1,937,592.21 specified in item 1 above, Sintalow claimed loss of profits amounting to $926,298.06. Added to items 2 and 3 above and less item 4, Sintalow’s alternative claim amounted to a total of $957,286.10.1
Chew’s AEIC referred to [132] of the Judgment where the court found that OSK took delivery of 5,142 pieces of 150mm CV couplings with 5mm rubber collars and 674 pieces of 200mm CV couplings with 5mm rubber collars leaving a balance of 758 pieces undelivered. At $7.80 per piece, the cost of the 758 pieces amounted to $5,912.40.2
Chew, in his AEIC, noted that the Court of Appeal had allowed Sintalow’s claim for the Excess Valves (see [8(c)] above).3 He elaborated on this claim at paras 74 to 87 of his AEIC, giving the history behind OSK’s orders under various valve agreements (which Chew compiled in a spreadsheet referred to as the “Material List for Valve Orders”) with a breakdown thereof as to the types of valves supplied, as well as the various prices. Based on the Material List for Valve Orders, Chew asserted that OSK was liable to Sintalow for $788,230.30.4
Chew explained that Sintalow considered any orders above $500,000 in value a “large scale order”. For such large scale orders (as was the case for OSK’s orders for the MBS project), Sintalow adopted the following course of conduct with its purchaser:5
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Apex Energy International Pte Ltd v Wanxiang Resources (Singapore) Pte Ltd
...Chai Charles and another [1998] 1 SLR(R) 880 at [38], which was recently cited in Sintalow Hardware Pte Ltd v OSK Engineering Pte Ltd [2019] SGHC 286 at [82]. Indeed, as the Court of Appeal observed in China Resources Purchasing Co Ltd v Yue Xiu Enterprises (S) Pte Ltd and another [1996] 1 ......