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
[1997] SGHC 12
Suit No 1342 of 1994
Between
Todd Trading Pte Ltd |
… Plaintiff
And
Alfon Far East 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. |
Todd Trading Pte Ltd v Alfon Far East Pte Ltd
[1997] SGHC 12
Suit No 1342 of 1994
MPH Rubin J
15 January 1997
MPH Rubin J
15 January 1997
1
Judgment:
Judgment:
2 Cur Adv Vult
3 J U D G M E N T
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 (e) The said letter of credit was subject to the production of the following documents:
11 (1) commercial invoice;
12 (2) full set clean on board bills of lading;
13 (3) certificate of origin issued by the Chamber of Commerce (sic);
14 (4) Certificate of quantity/quality weight and packing issued by SGS Vietnam (sic);
15 (5) Certificate of Fumigation issued by the Ministry of Agriculture; and
16 (6) Phytosanitary certificate issued by the Ministry of Agriculture.
17
18
19 (h) The said letter of credit is to be delivered to the plaintiffs by 23 July 1994.
20
21
22
23 2) To allow transhipment.
24
25
26
27
28
29 1. Certificate of Fumigation issued by the Vietnam Fumigation Department.
30 2. Phytosanitary Certificate issued by the Plant Production and Protection Department.
31
32 4. Transhipment allowed. Please confirm all in order. Meantime, we confirmed above all
in order. Best regards, Steven Low ... < Todd Trading Pte Ltd > We hereby confirm to
accept above terms and conditions. Terms and conditions set out on this page shall
constitute an integral part of the sales contract No. P94SIN280 dated 20th July 1994.
(signed Alfon Far East Pte Ltd) ...
in order. Best regards, Steven Low ... < Todd Trading Pte Ltd > We hereby confirm to
accept above terms and conditions. Terms and conditions set out on this page shall
constitute an integral part of the sales contract No. P94SIN280 dated 20th July 1994.
(signed Alfon Far East Pte Ltd) ...
33
34
35
36
37
38 3.* Under specifications, please delete 'well dry' and insert 'well dried'. * <
Note: Paragraphs 2C and 3 were included in AB-121 but not in AB-122 > . Please expedite
above L/C amendments as we are presently preparing cargo for shipment. ...
Note: Paragraphs 2C and 3 were included in AB-121 but not in AB-122 > . Please expedite
above L/C amendments as we are presently preparing cargo for shipment. ...
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46 (1) SGS Vietnam to SGS Supervise Vietnam Limited.
47 (2) Vietnam Fumigation Department to Vietnam Fumigation Company.
48 (3) Chamber of Commerce to Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Vietnam.
49 (4) Shipment effected by container vessel to shipment effected by container.
50
51
52 ... Your telex dated 03/08/1994 refers. We write to point out that you did not show
your intention to perform your obligation, otherwise, you need not to hold the performance
bond for a week without any reason. We wish to remind you that you did not give us ample
time to consider your amendment requirements. In your telex dated 02/08/1994 < AB-142
> sent on 11:37 a.m., you request the amendment reach you by your close today (ie
02/08/1994). We strongly felt that we are trying to put us on a very difficult position
and tried to give us hard time. We repeatedly (sic) to say that we are in all time willing
to accept the goods under the terms of contract. And therefore, we once again to remind
you that we did not reject to meet your requirements, so far. Now, please confirm per
return by 10:00 a.m. on 4th August 1994 that there will be no more amendments of above
L/C. Upon receipt your confirmation, we will amend above L/C in accordance to your fax
dated 28th July, 1994. ...
your intention to perform your obligation, otherwise, you need not to hold the performance
bond for a week without any reason. We wish to remind you that you did not give us ample
time to consider your amendment requirements. In your telex dated 02/08/1994 < AB-142
> sent on 11:37 a.m., you request the amendment reach you by your close today (ie
02/08/1994). We strongly felt that we are trying to put us on a very difficult position
and tried to give us hard time. We repeatedly (sic) to say that we are in all time willing
to accept the goods under the terms of contract. And therefore, we once again to remind
you that we did not reject to meet your requirements, so far. Now, please confirm per
return by 10:00 a.m. on 4th August 1994 that there will be no more amendments of above
L/C. Upon receipt your confirmation, we will amend above L/C in accordance to your fax
dated 28th July, 1994. ...
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61 (a) loss of profits in respect of goods not procured amounting to US$14,149.26;
62 (b) in respect of goods sold to UD Delapan Delapan amounting to US$30,401; and
63 (c) expenses incurred in relation thereto amounting to S$12,086.87.
64
65
66
67
68
69 Defendants' evidence
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89 Submissions and conclusions
90
91 45 Dealing first with the alternative contention as regards the discrepancy in relation
to the operative date provision, it must be remembered that it is a settled principle of
law that the failure by the buyer to open the letter of credit within the stipulated time
may be treated by the seller as a breach of a condition of the contract and as a
repudiation of it (see Nichimen Corporation v Gatoil Overseas Inc < 1987 > 2 Lloyd's
Rep 46). It is also well settled that the furnishing of the credit must be in strict
conformity with the provisions of the contract and any aberration thereof could rightly be
held as a repudiatory breach (see Wahbe Tamai & Sons and Jaffar Trading Co v
Colprogeca Sociedade General de Fibras, Cafes & Products Colonias, Lds < 1969 >
2 Lloyd's Rep 18). See also Benjamin's Sale of Goods (4th Edn), para 23-046 and Sintra
Merchants Pte Ltd v Brown Noel Trading Pte Ltd < 1996 > 2 SLR 444 at 461E-G.
to the operative date provision, it must be remembered that it is a settled principle of
law that the failure by the buyer to open the letter of credit within the stipulated time
may be treated by the seller as a breach of a condition of the contract and as a
repudiation of it (see Nichimen Corporation v Gatoil Overseas Inc < 1987 > 2 Lloyd's
Rep 46). It is also well settled that the furnishing of the credit must be in strict
conformity with the provisions of the contract and any aberration thereof could rightly be
held as a repudiatory breach (see Wahbe Tamai & Sons and Jaffar Trading Co v
Colprogeca Sociedade General de Fibras, Cafes & Products Colonias, Lds < 1969 >
2 Lloyd's Rep 18). See also Benjamin's Sale of Goods (4th Edn), para 23-046 and Sintra
Merchants Pte Ltd v Brown Noel Trading Pte Ltd < 1996 > 2 SLR 444 at 461E-G.
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99 Plaintiffs' claim
100
101
102
103
104
105 Defendants' claim for damages
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116 MPH RUBIN
117 < Judge >
MPH Rubin J |
Chow Kin Wah and Teoh Su Yin (Engelin Teh & Young) for the plaintiffs
Bonnie Lo and Lee Chau Ee (Drew & Napier) for the defendants
Bonnie Lo and Lee Chau Ee (Drew & Napier) 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)