This judgment text has undergone conversion so that it is mobile and web-friendly. This may have created formatting or alignment issues. Please refer to the PDF copy for a print-friendly version.
In the High Court of the Republic of Singapore
[1995] SGHC 178
Court of Appeal - Civil Appeal No 21 of 1995
Between
See Hup Seng Tin Factory Pte Ltd |
… Plaintiff
And
Mercury M-Power Industrial 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. |
See Hup Seng Tin Factory Pte Ltd v Mercury M-Power Industrial Pte Ltd
[1995] SGHC 178
Court of Appeal - Civil Appeal No 21 of 1995
Karthigesu JA; L P Thean JA; Yong Pung How CJ
27 July 1995
Karthigesu JA; L P Thean JA; Yong Pung How CJ
27 July 1995
1
Judgment:
Judgment:
2 Coram : Yong Pung How CJ
3 Karthigesu JA L P
4 Thean JA
5 < Delivered by Karthigesu JA >
6 Cur Adv Vult
7 J U D G M E N T
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 The vendors contend that 24 September 1993 was an agreed
contractual date of completion because the purchasers asked for a
completion account as at 24 September 1993 and the vendors
complied. Therefore the vendors submit there was an agreement to
complete the purchase on 24 September 1993. With respect to
learned counsel for the vendors, we do not agree. In our judgment
a request for a completion account as at a certain date is not an
offer to complete on that date such that a compliance with that
request constitutes an agreement to complete on that date. The
function of a completion account is simply to inform the
purchaser, and when requested for by the purchaser with which the
vendor complies, for the purchaser to be informed, the amount due
on completion. It serves no other purpose, see Toh Teck Sun v
Mandarin Gardens Pte Ltd < 1988 > 2 MLJ 276 at 279, 1st
column at letters D to E and Frans Furniture Pte Ltd v Good
Property Land Development Pte Ltd < 1991 > 3 MLJ 456 at
460, 1st column at letters D to E. Furthermore the evidence does
not disclose any express agreement that 24 September 1993 would
be the re- scheduled date of completion. Indeed, if the parties
had agreed that completion would take place on 24 September 1993,
it is surprising that this date is not reflected in the
correspondence. Still further, the conduct of the vendors after
24 September 1993 had passed without completion is not entirely
consistent with their stand taken before the High Court and now
before us. On 25 September 1993 the purchasers' solicitors
informed the vendors' solicitors that they had written to the BCD
to get confirmation whether the demolition order had been
complied with. If indeed it had been agreed that completion would
take place on 24 September 1993 one would have expected an
immediate and strong response from the vendors' solicitors that
the purchasers had defaulted in proceeding to complete.
contractual date of completion because the purchasers asked for a
completion account as at 24 September 1993 and the vendors
complied. Therefore the vendors submit there was an agreement to
complete the purchase on 24 September 1993. With respect to
learned counsel for the vendors, we do not agree. In our judgment
a request for a completion account as at a certain date is not an
offer to complete on that date such that a compliance with that
request constitutes an agreement to complete on that date. The
function of a completion account is simply to inform the
purchaser, and when requested for by the purchaser with which the
vendor complies, for the purchaser to be informed, the amount due
on completion. It serves no other purpose, see Toh Teck Sun v
Mandarin Gardens Pte Ltd < 1988 > 2 MLJ 276 at 279, 1st
column at letters D to E and Frans Furniture Pte Ltd v Good
Property Land Development Pte Ltd < 1991 > 3 MLJ 456 at
460, 1st column at letters D to E. Furthermore the evidence does
not disclose any express agreement that 24 September 1993 would
be the re- scheduled date of completion. Indeed, if the parties
had agreed that completion would take place on 24 September 1993,
it is surprising that this date is not reflected in the
correspondence. Still further, the conduct of the vendors after
24 September 1993 had passed without completion is not entirely
consistent with their stand taken before the High Court and now
before us. On 25 September 1993 the purchasers' solicitors
informed the vendors' solicitors that they had written to the BCD
to get confirmation whether the demolition order had been
complied with. If indeed it had been agreed that completion would
take place on 24 September 1993 one would have expected an
immediate and strong response from the vendors' solicitors that
the purchasers had defaulted in proceeding to complete.
26
27
28
29
30 And condition 29(2) of the 1981 Conditions of Sale reads:-
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41 - SGD -
42 YONG PUNG HOW
43 Chief Justice
44 - SGD -
45 KARTHIGESU
46 Judge of Appeal
47 - SGD -
48 L P THEAN
49 Judge of Appeal
50 14 September 1995
51 Solicitors: M/s Allen & Gledhill
52 M/s Gn & Partners
Karthigesu JA L P Thean JA Yong Pung How CJ |
K Shanmugam with Edwin Tong for the appellants
William Jansen with Hannah Goh for the respondents
William Jansen with Hannah Goh for the respondents
This judgment text has undergone conversion so that it is mobile and web-friendly. This may have created formatting or alignment issues. Please refer to the PDF copy for a print-friendly version.
Version No 1: 11 Sep 2026 (01:05 hrs)