[1994] SGHC 9

In the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

[1994] SGHC 9

S1455/1993, RA181/1993

Between

Natsteel Trade International Pte Ltd

… Plaintiff

And

Kloeckner Singapore Pte Ltd

… Defendant

grounds of decision

This judgment is subject to final editorial corrections approved by the court and/or redaction pursuant to the publisher’s duty in compliance with the law, for publication in LawNet and/or the Singapore Law Reports.

Natsteel Trade International Pte Ltd v Kloeckner Singapore Pte Ltd

[1994] SGHC 9

S1455/1993, RA181/1993
K S Rajah JC
08 January 1994

1
JUDGMENT:

4 The First Shipment

8 The Second Shipment

11 ZCZC SIN592 CWA506

12 QU,SIN,SEMM

13 KCD

14 R5583

15 TO KL SINGAPORE

16 AUG 28 1992 HOUS MSG 92/342

17 ATTN MR GERALD TAY

18 TOP URGENT TOP URGENT TOP URGENT

19 "RE: VISIT NATSTEEL

20 DEAR GERALD:

21 TO PUT THAT THING TOGETHER IS JUST A NIGHTMARE.

22 HERE IS NOW THE FINAL, FINAL AGENDA WE COULD PUT TOGETHER WITH THE BIRMINGHAM PEOPLE:

30 TKS N BRGDS CLAUS =9208282120

33 TO: NATSTEEL TRADE

34 DATE:16.9.92/0930h

35 Mr Chiang See Poh, Mr Koh Chwee Seng

36 FM: Gerald Tay

37 FAX NO: 2663335 NO OF PAGES: 1

38 SUBJ: PRIME BILLETS

40 As mutually agreed we herewith confirm the following:

42 Details of order will follow separately.

44 All other terms/conditions remain unchanged per your P/O no.FP8926.

46 All other terms/conditions as per your P/O no. FP8926.

47 This option of offer to Natsteel and its affiliate cos. is valid till 15 January 93.

50 Best regards

51 Signed

54 The Option

56 Date: 30 November 1992

57 To: KLOECKNER SINGAPORE PTE LTD

58 Attention: Mr Vincent Teo

59 Fax: 225-4980

60 From: Peter Lau/Ng Nai Pong

61 Our Ref: FX/M2/2680/92

62 Pages: 1

63 Please notify us at fax: 261-7372 if not received properly

64 ___________________________________________________

65 20,000 MT SAE 1010K BILLET EX-BIRMINGHAM (MARCH 93 SHIPMENT)

66 Re Mr Gerald Tay's Fax (FX-1932) dated 16 Sept 1992.

70 Regards.

71 Signed

72 Ng Nai Pong

79 The Sale and Purchase Agreement

81 (a) The appellant's facsimile message dated 16 September 1992;

82 (b) The respondent's facsimile message dated 30 November 1992;

83 (c) The appellant's facsimile message dated 3 December 1992;

84 (d) The respondent's purchase order No. P/M2/304/92 dated 15 December 1992;

85 (e) The respondent's purchase order No. FP 8926 dated 3 March 1992;

87 Respondent's Claim

90 ... As mutually agreed we herewith confirm ...

91 1. We will deliver ... for shipment end October 92 ...

92 Details of order will follow separately.

94 All other terms/conditions remain unchanged per your P/O No. FP8926. ...

96 Order 14 Hearing

98 (1) Whether there is a validly concluded contract in law;

99 (2) Whether the contract (if any) was a conditional contract;

100 (3) Whether the appellant is the proper party to the contract (if any);

101 (4) Whether Birmingham Steel Corporation is in any way liable to the respondent;

102 (5) Whether the respondent has suffered any damages as claimed or at all.

103 Issue No. 1

104

105

106

107 In Hussey v Horne-Payne 1879 3 App. Cas. 311 at 322 Lord Selborne said:

108

109 In Foley v Classique Coaches, Ld (1934) 2 KB 17, Viscount Dunedin said (P.21):

110

111

112 Issue No. 2

113

114 Issue No. 3

115

116

117 Some other reason for trial

118 Order 14 r. 3 reads:

119

120

121

122 The letter from the respondent to BSC of 16 June 1993 requires an explanation.

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

K S Rajah JC

Tan Tee Jim (Allen & Gledhill) for the plaintiff/respondent
Murugaiyan Sivakumar (Arthur Loke & Pnrs) for the defendant/appellant