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 273
Suit 1147/1994
Between
Containers Printers Pte Ltd |
… Plaintiff
And
Christopher Tan Associated Merchant Bank 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. |
Containers Printers Pte Ltd v Christopher Tan and Another
[1997] SGHC 273
Suit 1147/1994
Lai Kew Chai J
28 October 1997
Lai Kew Chai J
28 October 1997
1
Judgment:
Judgment:
2
3
4 The issue
5
6 offer conditional condition subsequent. offer
7 The agreed facts
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 "June 28, 1994
18 Associated Merchant Bank Pte Limited
19 9 Battery Road
20 $08-03 Straits Trading Building
21 Singapore 0104
22 Attention: Mr Christopher Tan
23 Credit and Marketing Manager
24 _______________________________________
25
26 Machineries:-
27 (1) Mawag Slitter
28 (2) Shin-I US Gallon Can Forming Line
29 (3) Sabatier S.A. S26 Tropicalized in-line stretch former
30
31 Terms of Payment
32 (A) Total S$425,000 for all 4 machineries.
33
34 (C) 10% D/P and 90% before delivery date - 06 July 1994.
35 Yours faithfully
36 CONTAINERS PRINTERS PTE LTD
37 Sgd: Cheo Tiong Heng
38 ___________________________
39 CHEO TIONG HENG
40 Managing Director "
41
42 The controversy
43 (a) The plaintiffs' case
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59 A: Yes.
60 Q: Was this conversation you had on the phone?
61 A: Yes.
62 Q: How long did this conversation last?
63 A: About 10 minutes.
64
65 A: He told me that he obtained his Head Office approval.
66
67 A: Yes. He told me that Head Office had approved.
68
69
70
71 A: He did say.
72 Court: Why didn't you say so in your affidavit - para 8?
73
74
75 A: He did tell me over the phone that our offer was accepted.
76
77
78
79
80 Q: Did he tell you when he could deliver?
81 A: No.
82 Q: Did he indicate the approximate delivery date?
83 A: No.
84
85 A: No.
86 Q: Did he ask you to ask Mr Cheo to change the delivery date?
87 A: No.
88
89 A: No. He didn't ask.
90
91 A: He didn't tell me the other terms and conditions.
92
93 A: He said he was no sure. I was also not sure.
94 Q: Delivery date was an outstanding item?
95 A: Yes.
96
97 Court: What is the reasonable basis for this question?
98 Mr Loh: I'm withdrawing the question.
99
100 A: He was not sure about the delivery date.
101
102 A: Yes.
103 Q: But that he could not comply with your company's other terms?
104
105 Q: He never told you he could deliver on 6 July 1994?
106 A: Yes. He told me he was not sure of the delivery date.
107
108 A: No. He already told me his Head Office had agreed."
109 (b) The defendants' case
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120 The findings
121
122
123
124
125
126 Sgd: LAI KEW CHAI J
127 [Judge]
128 Singapore,
129 28 October 1997.
Lai Kew Chai J |
Cheong Yuen Hee (Counsel) with Lai Swee Fung and Sim Lin Piah [Toh Tan & Partners] for the plaintiffs
Loh Boon Huat and Alan Loh Yong Koh [Godwin & Co] for the defendants
Loh Boon Huat and Alan Loh Yong Koh [Godwin & Co] 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)