Remedies of contract breach
Group A8 group memebers:
Question 1
HowCan Pte Ltd enters into a contract of sale with Panda Ltd in China for the sale of perishable goods, F.O.B (free on board: i.e. buyer has to make the shipping and other arrangements). Howcan Pte Ltd then gets SureCan Pte Ltd to transport perishable goods from China to Singapore. The ship is supposed to transit via Vietnam. The goods are shipped out of China, but due to improper planning on the part of SureCan Pte Ltd, they are wrongly dispatched in Vietnam and further, SureCan Pte Ltd has not bothered to remedy the situation. Howcan Pte Ltd managed to trace the goods, but by that time, the goods have already gone bad. Howcan Pte Ltd is thinking of writing off its losses instead of suing SureCan Pte Ltd as the latter is in liquidation. However meanwhile, the liquidator of SureCan Pte Ltd wants payment for shipping the goods from China to Vietnam. (a) Is SureCan Ltd entitled to any payment?
According to the general rule, one cannot seek payment from the other party if he has not completely performed his obligations, so the contract was not discharged by performance. In the case of Ocean Projects Inc v Ultatech Pte Ltd (1994), the defendants were engaged to transport the goods from Houston to Dumai by ship. They loaded the goods from Houston but, due to some reason, unloaded them in Singapore without going to Dumai. Since they did not complete the voyage, the court held that the defendants were not entitled to any payment for shipping the goods from Houston to Singapore. The same rationale applies in this case as well. Payment is conditional only upon complete performance. SureCan did not complete the contract and wrongly dispatched in Vietnam instead of Singapor. Therefore, in this case, SureCan is not entitled to any payment because it did not completely perform its obligation of shipping the goods from China to Singapore. However, there are four exceptions to this general rule. If SureCan
Question 1
HowCan Pte Ltd enters into a contract of sale with Panda Ltd in China for the sale of perishable goods, F.O.B (free on board: i.e. buyer has to make the shipping and other arrangements). Howcan Pte Ltd then gets SureCan Pte Ltd to transport perishable goods from China to Singapore. The ship is supposed to transit via Vietnam. The goods are shipped out of China, but due to improper planning on the part of SureCan Pte Ltd, they are wrongly dispatched in Vietnam and further, SureCan Pte Ltd has not bothered to remedy the situation. Howcan Pte Ltd managed to trace the goods, but by that time, the goods have already gone bad. Howcan Pte Ltd is thinking of writing off its losses instead of suing SureCan Pte Ltd as the latter is in liquidation. However meanwhile, the liquidator of SureCan Pte Ltd wants payment for shipping the goods from China to Vietnam. (a) Is SureCan Ltd entitled to any payment?
According to the general rule, one cannot seek payment from the other party if he has not completely performed his obligations, so the contract was not discharged by performance. In the case of Ocean Projects Inc v Ultatech Pte Ltd (1994), the defendants were engaged to transport the goods from Houston to Dumai by ship. They loaded the goods from Houston but, due to some reason, unloaded them in Singapore without going to Dumai. Since they did not complete the voyage, the court held that the defendants were not entitled to any payment for shipping the goods from Houston to Singapore. The same rationale applies in this case as well. Payment is conditional only upon complete performance. SureCan did not complete the contract and wrongly dispatched in Vietnam instead of Singapor. Therefore, in this case, SureCan is not entitled to any payment because it did not completely perform its obligation of shipping the goods from China to Singapore. However, there are four exceptions to this general rule. If SureCan