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. |
MERCURY M-POWER INDUSTRIAL PTE LTD V. SEE HUP SENG TIN FACTORY PTE LTD
[1995] SGHC 33
OS 39/1994
K S Rajah JC
06 February 1995
1 Judgment:
2 Coram: K S Rajah JC
3 J U D G M E N T
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 6. Further or alternatively, damages for breach of contract.
11 Background
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 We enclose copies of the requisition reply from:-
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 21 Days' Notice
29
30 The plaintiffs rely on the following grounds:-
31
32
33
34
35
36
37 (b) there was a JTC fax to which no objection had been taken;
38
39
40 (e) the plaintiffs requested a fresh completion account;
41
42
43
44
45
46 Findings
47
48
49
50
51
52 .....
53
54 .....
55
56 Item (j) refers to withdrawal of consent by JTC.
57
58
59
60
61
62 Option
63
64
65
66
67
68 Object & Intent of the Contract
69
70
71
72
73
74
75 Last but not least, we must refer to Carlish v Salt (1906) 1 Ch 335.
76
77
78
79 Carlish v Salt in application
80
81
82
83
84
85 Warren Khoo J said (p 111):-
86
87
88 The appellant relied on this proviso.
89
90
91
92
93 There will be judgment for the plaintiffs. There will be:-
94 (1) an order in terms of prayers 1, 2 and 3;
95
96
William Jansen (Gn & Partners) for the plaintiffs
Lawrence Wong (Tang & Tan) for the defendants