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
[1996] SGHC 239
Suit 233/1994
Between
Chin Ming Trading Pte Ltd |
… Plaintiff
And
Alkemal 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. |
Chin Ming Trading Pte Ltd v Alkemal Singapore Pte Ltd
[1996] SGHC 239
Suit 233/1994
Judith Prakash J
22 October 1996
Judith Prakash J
22 October 1996
1
Judgment:
Judgment:
2 Cur Adv Vult
3 JUDGMENT
4
5 Outline of the facts
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29 They had found the following defects in the goods:
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123 110. Mr Chia, counsel for the plaintiffs, submitted that the
defendants were bound to deliver blockboard of 18mm in thickness
and not of about 18mm in thickness in the absence of any evidence
of a definite margin by trade usage. He relied on the dictum of
Lord Atkins in Arcos Limited v E.A. Ronaasen < 1933 > AC
470 at p 479 as follows; 'It was contended that in all commercial
contracts the question was whether there was a substantial
compliance with the contract: there always must be some margin:
and it is for the tribunal of fact to determine whether the
margin is exceeded or not. I cannot agree. If the written
contract specifies conditions of weight, measurement and the
like, those conditions must be complied with. A ton does not mean
about a ton, or a yard about a yard. Still less when you descend
to minute measurements does 1/2 inch mean about 1/2 inch. If the
seller wants a margin he must and in my experience does stipulate
for it. Of course by recognized trade usage particular figures
may be given a different meaning, as in a baker's dozen; or there
may be even incorporated a definite margin more or less: but
there is no evidence of finding such a usage in the present
case.'
defendants were bound to deliver blockboard of 18mm in thickness
and not of about 18mm in thickness in the absence of any evidence
of a definite margin by trade usage. He relied on the dictum of
Lord Atkins in Arcos Limited v E.A. Ronaasen < 1933 > AC
470 at p 479 as follows; 'It was contended that in all commercial
contracts the question was whether there was a substantial
compliance with the contract: there always must be some margin:
and it is for the tribunal of fact to determine whether the
margin is exceeded or not. I cannot agree. If the written
contract specifies conditions of weight, measurement and the
like, those conditions must be complied with. A ton does not mean
about a ton, or a yard about a yard. Still less when you descend
to minute measurements does 1/2 inch mean about 1/2 inch. If the
seller wants a margin he must and in my experience does stipulate
for it. Of course by recognized trade usage particular figures
may be given a different meaning, as in a baker's dozen; or there
may be even incorporated a definite margin more or less: but
there is no evidence of finding such a usage in the present
case.'
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184 JUDITH PRAKASH
Judith Prakash J |
Joseph Chia (Joseph Chia & Co) for the plaintiffs
Eric Low with Wang Tiak Kweng (Khattar Wong & Partners) for the defendants
Eric Low with Wang Tiak Kweng (Khattar Wong & Partners) for the defendants
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)