1 LAI KEW CHAI J

2 Cur Adv Vult

3 The plaintiffs claim the sum of US$101,760 being the difference in the market price for 192 metric tons of Polypropylene Propelinas 6041 which admittedly the defendants under a contract of sale did not deliver. The defence is that this was a sale of goods by description, ie `Propelinas 6041`, and under s 27 of the Sale of Goods Act (Cap 393, 1994 Ed) the defendants in a sale of unappropriated goods were obliged to, and indeed not entitled, to deliver any polypropylene other than `Propelinas 6041`. It is further alleged that this specific class of polypropylene was in the whole world only manufactured by a Malaysian company and that the manufacturers were unable owing to shortage of the `feedstock` and mechanical breakdown to supply the goods. Accordingly, the defendants are invoking cl 6 of the contract to excuse them from delivering the goods. Polypropylene (film grade) is a petrochemical resin used for making plastic bags for food and garment packaging and industrial usage.

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 Christopher Hill Ltd v Ashington Piggeries Ltd [1972] AC 441. On the evidence, there were several generic and contractual polypropylene substitutes on the market. Propelinas 6041, on the evidence, was not proved to have any `unique and specific properties that distinguish it from other polypropylene firm grade products`.

11 

12 

13