CAP 5 BIZLAW TEMPLATES Essentials of Contract This question deals with essentials of a contract. In order for a contract to be enforceable in law, there must be four elements present. They are: (1) Offer; (2) Acceptance; (3) Consideration; and (4) Intention to create legal relations. If any of those four elements are missing, there will not be a valid contract. Offer In Preston Corpn Sdn Bhd v Edward Leong (1982) , an offer was defined as an intimation of willingness by an offeror to enter into a legally binding contract and is expressly or impliedly indicated that it is to be binding on the offeror as soon as it has been accepted by the offeree. This is opposed to an Invitation To Treat (ITT). ITT is an offer to negotiate or an offer to receive offers, and is not an indication by the offeror that he is willing to be bound should the other party be interested in proceeding further. Page 24 For example, the case of Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemicals (1952) provides that the display of goods is merely an ITT, and not an offer. Thus if there is a mistake in the displayed price, the cashier can refuse the offer at that price and instead make a new quote. Also, if display of goods is considered an offer, seller might not be able to state that the goods have been reserved. Also, in Patridge v Crittenden (1968) , it was held 1
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
CAP 5 Bizlaw Templates
Essentials of
Contract
This question deals with essentials of a contract. In order for a contract to be
enforceable in law, there must be four elements present. They are: (1) Offer;
(2) Acceptance; (3) Consideration; and (4) Intention to create legal relations.
If any of those four elements are missing, there will not be a valid contract.
Offer In Preston Corpn Sdn Bhd v Edward Leong (1982), an offer was defined as an
intimation of willingness by an offeror to enter into a legally binding contract
and is expressly or impliedly indicated that it is to be binding on the offeror
as soon as it has been accepted by the offeree.
This is opposed to an Invitation To Treat (ITT). ITT is an offer to negotiate or
an offer to receive offers, and is not an indication by the offeror that he is
willing to be bound should the other party be interested in proceeding
further. Page 24
For example, the case of Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash
Chemicals (1952) provides that the display of goods is merely an ITT, and not
an offer. Thus if there is a mistake in the displayed price, the cashier can
refuse the offer at that price and instead make a new quote. Also, if display
of goods is considered an offer, seller might not be able to state that the
goods have been reserved.
Also, in Patridge v Crittenden (1968), it was held that an advertisement is an
ITT. Following this it can be generally stated that advertisements, catalogues
and menus would generally only amount to ITTs as it would be unreasonable
to expect the advertiser to always have sufficient stocks of the items
advertised. See Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1892) for an exception in the
case of unilateral contracts. Page 26
An offer may be terminated by revocation, lapse of time, when the offer is
subject to an unsatisfied condition, death of the offeror, and rejection.
For a revocation to be valid, it must be made before acceptance by the
offeree, as provided by Byrne v Van Tienhoven (1880). If revocation is made
by post, it is only valid upon receipt.
1
CAP 5 Bizlaw Templates
An offer is also terminated upon rejection by the offeree. It must be noted
that if the offeree makes a counter-offer, that is an offer which is inconsistent
with the original offer as new terms are introduced, the counter-offer has the
effect of rejecting the original offer, as provided by Hyde v Wrench (1840).
However, if the offeree is not making a counter-offer but just asking for more
information, he is not rejecting the original offer and hence the original offer
is still valid. Hence, whether or not there is a counter-offer is a question of
fact for the court to decide.
Apply the law...any offer? Any counter-offer?
Acceptance The next requirement would be an acceptance of the offer. Valid acceptance
must be communicated properly. For communication of acceptance via post,
the Postal Acceptance Rule, as provided by Adams v Lindsall (1818), applies
in Singapore. It states that acceptance is effective when the letter is posted,
unless the contract provides for otherwise. Page 33
It must also be noted that in order for both offer and acceptance to be valid,
all essential terms must be agreed upon, as mentioned in Scammell v Ouston
1941). Page 36
Apply the law...was there a valid acceptance? For there to be an offer and
acceptance, there must be a “meeting of the minds” and a reasonable person
would have/would not have construed XXX to be an acceptance of the offer.
Consideration The next essential of a valid contract would be consideration, unless the
contract is by seal or deed. Consideration must move from the promisee, but
need not move to the promisor. Consideration must be sufficient, but need
not be adequate. The court will not help one out of a bad bargain. Whether
or not consideration is sufficient depends on several points. Page 37
For example, if one party is already under public duty to perform what he
subsequently agrees to do by contract, consideration will be insufficient, as
stated in Collins v Godfroy (1831). Or, where one party is under existing
contractual obligation to another to perform something, but thereafter that
2
CAP 5 Bizlaw Templates
party demands more to perform the very same obligation, there will be no
fresh or further consideration, and hence is insufficient, as stated in Stilk v
Myrick (1809) (see variations to contract).
Apply the law...was there valid consideration?
Intention to Create
Legal Relations
Finally, there must be intention to create legal relations. In domestic
situations, it is presumed that there are no intentions to create legal
relations, as in Balfour v Balfour (1919).
However, Merritt v Merritt (1970) rebuts this and provides that if it was
envisaged from the beginning that should something go wrong, parties to the
agreement would seek legal redress, and then there would be an intention to
create legal relations. In this case, the parties were not on good terms and
hence had intent to create legal relations.
Variation of
Contract
There are four ways for any variations of a contract to be valid. They are:
1. Fresh consideration
2. Variation made by way of seal or deed,
3. Williams v Roffey exception,
4. Promissory estoppel.
If there is fresh consideration for the variation, the variation will be valid, as
both parties get something in return for agreeing to the change.
The Williams v Roffey exception provides that when party A promises to pay
more to party B in return for the proper completion of the contract, and in
doing so, receives a benefit or obviates a disbenefit, and this promise is not
given as a result of economic duress or fraud by party B, then the benefit or
avoidance of disbenefit is capable of consideration, and the promise is legally
binding. Page 45
Apply the law...
3
CAP 5 Bizlaw Templates
Promissory estoppel is generally used as a defence to a variation of a
contract. Elements of Promissory Estoppel:
1. Clear representation
2. Representee suffered a detriment
3. Detriment must be suffered in reliance of the representation
4. It must be inequitable for the representor to insist on his legal rights
Party X had relied on the promise of party Y and it would be unfair for Y to
renege on the terms…
Termination of
Contract
This question deals with contract law. There are four ways a contract can be
terminated. They are: performance; agreement; repudiatory or fundamental
breach; and frustration.
Performance Generally, payment is conditional upon complete performance as in Cutter v
Powell (1795), unless the following exceptions are applicable:
(1) There is substantial performance, as provided in Hoenig v Isaacs (1952)
Whether or not there is substantial performance is a question of fact for the
court to decide. Page 104
(2) The contract is divisible such that payment is made after completion of
each stage.
(3) If one party has begun performing his obligations, but has been prevented
by the other party from completing the contract, he may be entitled to
payment on a quantum meruit basis, as provided in Planche v Colburn
(1831).
(4) If one party has not completed his obligations, but the other party accepts
the incomplete performance, then payment may be entitled on a quantum
meruit basis. However, if the party has no choice but to accept the
incomplete performance, then there is no acceptance, as provided by
Sumpter v Hedges (1831).
Agreement A contract can also be terminated if both parties agree to its termination,
4
CAP 5 Bizlaw Templates
subject to conditions provided by the contract.
Repudiatory or
Fundamental
Breach
The next way in which a contract may be terminated is by repudiatory or
fundamental breach. Repudiation occurs when one party intimates to
another that he no longer intends to be bound by the contract, and can be
anticipatory or actual. A fundamental breach occurs when one party without
repudiating the contract, commits a fundamental breach of the contact.
However, the innocent party has the option to keep the contract alive and
not terminate it, but he will be subject to all ensuing consequences Page 108
Frustration Finally, a contract can be terminated by frustration. Frustration is the
occurrence of an unexpected event beyond the control of the parties which
makes further performance of the contract illegal, impossible, or radically
different from what was originally envisaged by the parties. When frustrated,
both parties are relieved from their contractual obligations. Page 111
For example, impossibility may arise if the contract states that it must be
fulfilled in a particular manner and that becomes impossible, as provided by
Nicholl & Knight v Ashton Edridge & Co (1901).
If the contract can now only be performed in a way that is radically different
from what was originally envisaged by the parties that may result in
frustration. Whether or not there is frustration if a particular purpose of the
contract is no longer attainable depends on whether that purpose was
understood by both parties to be the very basis of the contract, as in Krell v
Henry (1903).
It is important to note that labour shortages or price increases do not
amount to frustration, as stated in Davis Contractors Ltd v Fareham UDC
(1956). Page 113
Also, if the parties foresaw a particular event or could have reasonably
foreseen that a particular event would occur and nonetheless decided to go
ahead with the contract, and that event occurs, making performance
impossible, the doctrine of frustration would not apply. Page 114
5
CAP 5 Bizlaw Templates
In addition, frustration cannot be successfully raised if it is self-induced, as
provided in Maritime National Fish Ltd v Ocean Trawlers (1935).
A force majeure clause can widen or narrow down what amounts to
frustration in law, and what happens to a contract during a frustrating event,
such that liability to either party is reduced – either by discharging the
contract or provide for a temporary suspension of the contract. Page 115
In frustration, generally, losses lie where they fall. If the contract is applicable
under the Frustrated Contracts Act, then Section 2(2) provides that any sum
paid before the frustrating event can be recovered and any sum payable
after the frustrating event need not be paid. However, if one party incurred
an expense for the purpose of performing the contract before the discharge,
or the other party obtained a benefit from the performance of the contract
before the discharge, the court has the discretion to make an adjustment
(pay for whatever has been performed). Page 116
Apply the law...impossible performance? Force majeure clause would solve
most issues of increase in prices or labour shortages. However, a force
majeure clause is to be restricted to supervening events without the fault of
either party.
Restraint of Trade This question deals with the laws governing restraint of trade. Restraint of
trade clause seeks to restrict the other party to the contract in terms of what
the other party can do later on with his business or profession.
Restraint of trade clauses are prima facie void. To be upheld, the clause must
be reasonable as between the parties themselves and with regard to public
interest. To determine reasonableness, the court will first establish if there is
a legitimate interest to be protected, as in Lansing Linde Ltd v Kerr. In sales of
businesses, goodwill would have been paid, and it would be legitimate to
expect that the seller would not set up a business in competition to the one
he had sold. Secondly, the court will establish if the clause is reasonable in
terms of time, area and scope of restraint Page 83
6
CAP 5 Bizlaw Templates
If the restraint is unusually wide, the court may run a blue pencil through it
such that the clause becomes reasonable. However, the court will only do
this if it is possible to do so without adding or altering words. In addition, if
the clause is found to be invalid, such clauses would usually be severable
from the rest of the contract. Blue pencil is also not commonly invoked in
Singapore. Page 86-87
Apply the law...legitimate interest? Reasonableness in terms of time, area
and scope of restraint.
If the restraint of trade clause is valid, the party enforcing the clause can seek
an injunction to force the offender to observe the clause. He can also seek an
account of profits made, and sue for incidental losses due to the unfair
competition.
Remedies The more common remedies for breach of contract are: Damages; Specific
performance; and Injunctions.
Unliquidated
Damages
Unliquidated damages refer to damages that have not been pre-agreed to by
the parties to the contract and are hence determined by the court. The aim
of unliquidated damages is to put the plaintiff in the position he would be in
if the contract had been properly performed. Page 119
To claim unliquidated damages, it must be proved that some loss has been
suffered. Generally, only losses suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the
contract not being properly performed can be claimed, and not the profits
made by the defendant, as given by Teacher v Calder.
Expectation and
Reliance Loss
A claim may also be based on expectation or reliance loss. This refers to what
the plaintiff would have expected to get if the contract had been properly
performed, as in Chaplin v Hicks. Reliance loss refers to wasted expenditure
incurred by the plaintiff prior to the breach, as in Anglia Television Ltd v
Reed. Page 121
It is possible to claim both expectation and reliance loss if it does not result in
double compensation, that is, the expectation loss is calculated on a net
7
CAP 5 Bizlaw Templates
basis.
Incidental Loss Incidental losses can be claimed as well. For example, the expenses incurred
in sourcing for another supplier when the original supplier is unable to
perform his obligations, can be claimed. Page 122
Damaged Feelings Generally, damages for injured feelings such as disappointment cannot be
claimed. However, if the very purpose of the contract were to provide
pleasure, relaxation or peace of mind, it may be possible to claim for such
losses, as in Jarvis v Swan Tours Ltd. Page 123
Limitations In claiming any unliquidated damages, there are 3 conditions that must be
satisfied. They are: Remoteness; Mitigation; and Causation. Page 124
If the damages are considered too remote, then they cannot be claimed. The
test for remoteness was laid down in Hadley v Baxendale. Damages would
not be too remote if they arose naturally. If the loss was exceptional, then it
can be claimed only if it was within the contemplation of the parties at the
time of the contract.
Also, the plaintiff must have taken reasonable steps in mitigating his loss, as
in Brace v Calder. Whether or not reasonable steps were taken is a question
of fact for the court to decide.
Finally, it must be proved that the plaintiff’s loss has been caused by the
defendant’s breach.
Liquidated Damages Liquidated damages refer to those pre-agreed to by the parties to the
contract. The basic rule is that if the sum stated in the contract can be
considered to be a pre-genuine estimate of the loss, it will be binding on the
parties. If not, it will be deemed as a penalty clause.
Whether or not the court will find it to be a pre-genuine estimate depends
on whether the sum stated is extravagant compared to the greatest loss that
can possibly follow from the breach, and whether a single sum is payable
regardless of the extent of the breach.
Once the court finds the damages specified as a pre-genuine estimate, then
8
CAP 5 Bizlaw Templates
the plaintiff is only entitled to the damages specified, and not actual losses.
Apply the law… In this case, since the sum stated by the clause is not
extravagant compared to the greatest loss since XXX, and the sum is variable
depending on the extent of the breach, the clause is likely a genuine pre-
estimate of the loss and not a penalty. Therefore, the courts would likely
hold it enforceable and Party Y would be liable for liquidated damages. Only
what is stated in the clause can be recovered, not the actual loss.
Penalty Clause On the other hand, if the clause is a penalty, and it is greater than the actual
loss, then only the actual loss can be claimed. However, in the less likely
event that it is a penalty and yet is less than the actual loss, then plaintiff has
a choice of claiming either the sum stated in the contract or the actual loss.
Specific
Performance
In addition to damages, the court may grant specific performance, which is a
discretionary remedy. For example, the court may order the party in breach
to perform its contractual obligations. Where damages are adequate, specific
performance is usually not granted. Also, an order of specific performance
generally would not be granted in contracts of personal service (employment
contracts). Page 131
Injunction Another common discretionary remedy if an injunction, which is a court
order forcing a party to observe a negative covenant.
Restitution Aside from contractual remedies, the innocent party may have remedies
under the law of restitution. If A is enriched at the expense of B in
circumstances such that enrichment is unjust, B may be able to sue A and
seek restitution. This is particularly useful when contract laws do not apply
(no contract). Page 132
Alternative Dispute
Resolution
Other than litigation, there are other ways of resolving civil disputes, such as
mediation and arbitration.
Mediation Mediation can be conducted through the Singapore Mediation Centre. Both
parties must agree to submit their dispute to mediation. Mediation is
relatively cheap and disputes can be mediated in a relatively short time. Also,
there is privacy, unlike litigation. In addition, mediation is amicable and
works towards creating a win-win situation. In mediation at the SMC, the
mediator is a professional who could have technical expertise in the matter
9
CAP 5 Bizlaw Templates
being disputed. However, the main disadvantage is that it may not be final if
an agreement cannot be reached.
Another type of mediation can be conducted at the Primary Dispute
Resolution Centre, which is free. The difference from SMC is that the
mediator is a judge of the Subordinate Courts.
Arbitration Arbitration is conducted at the Singapore International Arbitration Centre.
Arbitration is relatively faster and cheaper than litigation. Like mediation,
there is privacy. Also, the parties may be able to choose an arbitrator that
has relevant technical expertise. In addition, an arbitration award may be
enforced domestically and internationally in over 140 countries, unlike
litigation. The main difference from mediation is that judgement passed is
final. However, there may be very limited grounds on which an appeal can be
made to courts against an arbitral award.
Tort of Negligence This case deals with the tort of negligence. Negligence refers to carelessness.
However, mere carelessness does not give rise to liability. In order to be
liable under the tort of negligence, four elements must be proved: (1) The
defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care; (2) The defendant breached that
duty of care; (3) The defendant’s breach caused the plaintiff’s loss; and (4)
That loss is not too remote. Page 300
If any one element is missing, then liability under the tort of negligence
cannot be established. The burden of establishing duty of care falls on the
plaintiff, which may be lightened by raising res ipsa loquitur where if plaintiff
does not know the cause of the accident, but the thing causing the accident
is under the defendant and the accident does not normally occur unless
there has been negligence on the part of the defendant, court will infer
negligence. Page 311
Duty of care The establishing of duty of care is based upon Lord Atkin’s “neighbour
principle”, arising from the case of Donoghue vs Stevenson. In doing so, the
court must first satisfy itself whether factually speaking, it was foreseeable
that the defendant’s actions or omissions could cause damage to the
plaintiff. Then, the court will determine whether legally speaking, there is a
close and proximate relationship between the parties and if so, whether
10
CAP 5 Bizlaw Templates
there are any policy considerations which negate the finding of a duty of
care. Page 301
In this case... apply the law to the case here... given that there was a close
and proximate relationship between the parties such that X ought to have
held Y in contemplation when carrying out his act as well as XXX being in the
interest of the public, X owes Y a duty of care, on the facts of the case.
Breach of duty of
care
The plaintiff then has to establish that there was a breach of that duty of
care. This means the omission to do something which a reasonable man
would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would
not do, as elaborated in Blyth v Birmingham. If the defendant professes to
have a particular skill or knowledge, then the question becomes what
another person of similar skill and knowledge would have done. In addition,
the court will weigh and balance many factors such as the likelihood of
danger and the severity of the danger if it results, as well as the cost of
averting the danger. Page 309
In this case... apply the law to the case here... a reasonable person with the
same training and skills would not have done XXX. Furthermore, the benefit
is much higher than taking any possible protective measures and the
defendant ought to have taken the following measures, and since they did
not, they are likely to have breached their duty of care.
However, whether or not there was indeed a breach of duty of care is a
matter of fact for the court to decide.
Causation of loss Next, causation of loss must be established through the application of the
“but for” test. That is, whether the plaintiff’s loss could have been avoidable,
but for the defendant’s negligence. However, the chain of causation may be
broken in the presence of a novus actus interveniens and the damages
caused by the defendant is exarcebated by some unreasonable act on the
part of the plaintiff, as in Mckew v Holland and Hannens and Cubitts. Page
312
In this case... apply the law to the case here...however, whether or not there
11
CAP 5 Bizlaw Templates
was indeed causation is a matter of fact for the court to decide.
Loss not remote Lastly, it must be established that the damages claimed by the plaintiff are
not too remote, that is, whether they are reasonably foreseeable. The test
for remoteness was laid down in Hadley v Baxendale. Damages would not be
too remote if they arose naturally, or in the usual course of things, such
damages would not be incurred. Exceptional loss can only be claimed
provided it was within the contemplation of both parties at the time of the
contract. Also, usually, what has to be foreseen is the type of harm, not the
extent of harm. Thus, the “thin skull” rule states that the defendant has to
take the plaintiff as he finds him. Page 313
In this case... apply the law to the case here...
Given that XXX was damage that was foreseeable by a reasonable person
under the circumstances, the loss is not too remote and therefore, this
element of the tort of negligence is fulfilled.
However, whether or not there the damages are remote or not is a matter of
fact for the court to decide.
Defences Even if all four elements have been established, the defendant may have
several defences, such as raising contributory negligence, voluntary
assumption of risk, and excluding liability.
Contributory
Negligence
In raising contributory negligence, if the defendant can establish that the
plaintiff contributed to the loss as a result of fault on his part, the damages
claimable may be reduced, as in Sayers v Harlow. It does not have to be
established that the plaintiff owes the defendant a duty of care and that it
has been breached.
For example, apply case... on the facts of the case, the plaintiff contributed
to the loss through XXX as a direct result of fault on his part. The defendant
may use this as a defence to mitigate loss.
Voluntary
assumption of risk
or Volunti Non Fit
In addition, if the plaintiff voluntarily assumes the risk that a tort may be
committed against him, the defendant may use this as a defence, as in Morris
v Murray.
12
CAP 5 Bizlaw Templates
Injuria For example, apply case... on the facts of the case, the plaintiff voluntarily
assumed risk when XXX…
However, in this case, there was no true voluntary assumption of risk as the
plaintiff did not agree orally, in writing or by any action implying they agreed
to take on risk. Hence, this defence would likely be overruled by the courts.
Exclusion Clause 1) Is the clause part of the contract Page 65
Apply the law… on the facts of the case, the exclusion clause was
introduced after acceptance and thus was not part of the contract,
and therefore is not binding.
2) Is there reasonable notice of the clause? Page 66
Apply the law… on the facts of the case, there was no reasonable
notice of the clause given, as it was not noticeable / no reasonable
person in the circumstances would have expected to find contractual
terms on XXX item.
Furthermore, as the clause was unusual, Party Y should have taken
more steps to bring it to the attention of the other party, for
example, having it in bold print.
Therefore, the courts would likely rule that this clause is invalid.
3) Does the clause cover the breach Page 68
Apply the law… on the facts of the case, the exclusion clause is
ambiguous and does not clearly cover what has happened. Under the
doctrine of contra proferentem, it will be strictly construed against
the party trying to rely on it.
4) Is the clause valid under the UCTA?
Under section 2(1) of the UCTA, any clause attempting to exclude
liability from negligence resulting in personal injury, death would be
invalid. Section 2(2) provides any clause attempting to exclude
liability from negligence resulting in property damages would be
13
CAP 5 Bizlaw Templates
invalid unless the clause is reasonable.
Whether or not the clause is reasonable depends on the bargaining
strength of the parties as in Consmat Singapore Pte Ltd v America
National Trust, whether the customer was induced to agree with the
term, whether the customer knows about the clause, and whether
any conditions within the clause are reasonable. Reasonableness is a
question of fact for the court to decide. Page 70
In this case, apply law...
In conclusion...liable/not liable under tort of negligence, damages/remedies,
defences.
Tort of Vicarious
Liability
The employer of the person in fault may also be liable under the tort of
vicarious liability. In order to establish such a liability, two conditions must be
satisfied.
Firstly, the employee must be legally at fault.
Secondly, the actions that put him legally at fault must have taken place in
the course of employment, as established in Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd. The test
for this is to see if there is a close connection between the nature of the
employment and the employee’s wrongdoing. If there is a close connection,
then the employer can be made vicariously liable. If an employer is held
vicariously liable, he has a right to institute an action against the employee to
get an indemnity, and even terminate the employment contract, depending
on circumstances.
Contractors are not employees and hence someone who engages a
contractor cannot be made vicariously liable.
In this case, apply law... although X company was not primarily liable as it
14
CAP 5 Bizlaw Templates
had provided sufficient training to its employee, it may still be made
vicariously liable for the actions of its employee Y because its employee was
negligent in the course of business.
Product liability
(SGA)
This question deals with product liability under the Sale of Goods Act. For
transactions not including “goods”, such as property and services, they are
not governed by the SGA, and the general rule would be caveat emptor or
buyer beware. However, since the transactions in this case involve goods, the
SGA applies.
Section 12 Section 12(1) provides that it is an implied condition that the seller has the
right to sell the goods when property or ownership is to pass to the buyer.
Since this term is a condition, Party X can repudiate the contract, reject the
goods and sue for damages if the courts rule that there has been a breach.
Section 13 Implied terms that the goods will correspond with the description. Not
necessarily in the course of business.
1) Do the goods correspond with the description provided?
2) Did the buyer rely on the description of the seller?
Goods do not cease to be a sale by description just because the goods are
exposed for sale and selected by the buyer. This means that even if the
buyer’s inspection should have revealed unsatisfactory differences but the
buyer did not notice, defendant could still be held liable. (Overlap with 14).
Section 14(2) Section 14(2) provides for that when the seller is selling in the course of
business, it is an implied term that goods supplied under the contract will be
of satisfactory quality. Section 14(2A) states that goods would be deemed
satisfactory if a reasonable person would regard the goods as satisfactory
considering the description, price and all other relevant circumstances.
Section 14(2B) provides for certain factors that may deem a good
unsatisfactory, such as: Fitness for purpose for which the goods are
commonly supplied, appearance and finish, freedom from minor defects,
safety, and durability.
Section 14(3) Section 14(3) provides for the impied term that when the seller is selling in
the course of business and the buyer makes known to the seller any
particular purpose for which the goods are being bought, the goods must be
reasonable fit for that purpose, unless the buyer does not rely or if it is
15
CAP 5 Bizlaw Templates
unreasonable for the buyer to rely on the seller’s skill and judgement.
Remedies Remedies for breach of section 14(2) or section 14(3) would be to repudiate
the contract, reject the goods and sue for damages if any. However, the
buyer can lose this right. Section 35 provides that the buyer would be
deemed to have accepted the goods if he does any act in relation to the
goods which is inconsistent with the ownership of the seller, or if he
intimated to the seller that he has so accepted the goods, or if he keeps the
goods for more than a reasonable period of time without informing the seller
that he has rejected them.
Furthermore, under Section 15A in non-consumer sales, if the goods are
bought for resale and the breach in 13, 14 or 15 is so slight as to be
unreasonable for the buyer to reject the goods, he cannot do so and can only
sue for damages if any.
Liability of
manufacturers and
distributors
Retailer can in turn sue the manufacturer, by virtue of Britestone Pte Ltd v
Smith & Associates Far East, Ltd (2007).
Consumer can also directly sue the manufacturer, when there is a guarantee,
or if the customer suffers physical injury as a result of negligence on the part
of the manufacturers.
The case of TV Media Pte Ltd v De Cruz Andrea Heidi (2004), the well known
Slim 10 case, provides that manufacturers and distributors can also be
directly liable for the breach of the SGA and other areas of law such as the
tort of negligence.
Exclusion Clause Whether or not any exclusion clause is valid or not depends on whether it
was properly incorporated into the contract (Chapelton v Barry UDC),
whether there was reasonable notice of the exclusion clause, and whether
the exclusion clause covers that breach. The exclusion clause must not be
ambiguous, or it will be construed against the party relying on the clause,
based on the Contra Proferentum Rule.
Even if the court finds the exclusion clause to be of proper incorporation, it
16
CAP 5 Bizlaw Templates
may be statutorily invalid. Under section 6(2) of the UCTA, it is provided that
in consumer sales, any attempt to exclude liability for breach of section 13,
14, 15 would be invalid. In contrast, section 6(3) of the UCTA provides that in
non-consumer sales, liability for the breach of section 13, 14, 15 may be
excluded if it is reasonable, based on certain factors such as the ones
mentioned at the beginning of this paragraph.
In this case.....apply the law....however, whether or not this is a
consumer/non-consumer sale .....whether or not the exclusion clause is
reasonable...whether the buyer has lost his right to reject...is a matter of fact
for the court to decide.
In conclusion, liable under SGA...remedies.
Factors vitiating a
contract
This question deals with factors vitiating a contract. A contract may be
declared unenforceable if some vitiating factors are present, such as
incapacity, illegality, against public policy, misrepresentation, duress, undue
inluence, mistake and unconscionability.
Misrepresentation In this case, the laws on misrepresentation are relevant. Misrepresentation is
a false statement of material fact that induces the formation of the contract.
This is true even if the misrepresentation is not the sole inducing factor for
the formation of the contract, as provided for in Edginton v Fitzmaurice. An
opinion does not amount to a representation, unless the maker of the
opinion could not have reasonably believed in the truth of the statement, or
the opinion was backed by evidence. Sales talk also does not amount to a
representation, as a reasonable person would not take such statements
seriously.
If the person relying on the representation is given an opportunity to verify
the truth of the statement, but he does not make use of that opportunity, it
would appear that does not deprive him of his right to sue for
misrepresentaion, as provided by Redgrave v Hurd.
Types There are three types of mispresentation, namely fraudulent, negligent and
innocent.
Fraudulent Misrepresentation is fraudulent if the maker knew it was false or did not
17
CAP 5 Bizlaw Templates
believe in the truth of the statement or was recklessly careless whether the
statement was true or false, as provided by Panatron v Lee Cheow Lee.
Negligent Mispresentation is negligent if it was made without having reasonable
grounds for its belief, as provided by Howard Marine & Dredging Co v A
Ogden & Sons (Excavations) Ltd.
Innocent The misrepresentation is innocent is there are reasonable grounds for its
belief.
Remedies Remedies for mispresentation include recission of contract, which means
terminating the contract and returning the parties to the position they were
before the contract. Misrepresentation makes a contract voidable, that is,
the contract is still valid until set aside. However, there are certain bars to
recission such as affirmation of the contract, lapse of reasonable time,
resititutio in integrum is impossible or if there are third party rights involved.
In addition, damages may be claimed for fraudulent and negligent
misrepresentations if losses have been suffered. However, for negligent
misrepresentation, by virtue of section 2(2) of the Misrepresentation Act, the
court has the power to disallow recission and grant damages instead. For
innocent misrepresentation, the court may grant indemnity instead.
In excluding liability for misrepresentation, it may be valid under section 3 of
the Misrepresentation Act, provided it is reasonable, such as whether it was
properly incorporated into the contract, whether there was reasonable
notice of it, and whether the clause covers the breach.
There may also be an “entire agreement” clause in the contract that may
exclude liability indirectly.
In this case, identify areas of misrepresentation.
In my opinion, this misrepresentation is fraudulent/ negligent/ innocent.
However, the type of misrepresentation is a matter of fact for the court to
decide.
18
CAP 5 Bizlaw Templates
The remedies available to XXX are to rescind the contract and claim damages,
or to claim damages only if the court disallows recission, or to be indemnified
if the court determines the misrepresentation to be innocent.
Tort of Passing Off This question deals with the tort of passing off. To establish a tort of passing
off, 3 conditions must be satisfied, as laid down in Reckitt & Coleman
Products v Borden Inc. It must be proved that there is goodwill attached to
the the plaintiff’s business, there is misrepresentation by the defendants that
the goods or services offered are the same as those offered by the plaintiff,
and that the plaintiff has suffered or is likely to suffer losses.
Goodwill Goodwill refers to the benefit attached to the reputation of the business.
Apply the law...is the plaintiff a well-known organisation?
Misrepresentation Next, the defendant must have misrepresented his goods or services. This
could include the name of the business, its logo, and its colour scheme,
among others.
Apply the law...similar name? logo? Question of fact for the court to decide.
Losses Thirdly, the plaintiff must prove that losses were suffered or that he is likely
to suffer losses. If the prior two elements have been satisfied, then it is highly
likely that the offending company could create confusion in the company and
possibily damage the goodwill of the plaintiff’s business.
Apply the law....
Remedies The remedies available to the plaintiff would be to seek an injunction from
the court, and sue for damages or for an account of profits.
Partnerships There are 5 main types of business organisations, namely sole