Trigen Industries v Sinko Technologies: Breach of Contract & Agency in Computer Chip Sale

Trigen Industries Ltd, a company incorporated in the Republic of China, sued Sinko Technologies Pte Ltd in the High Court of Singapore for breach of contract, alleging failure to deliver computer chips. Trigen claimed Sinko was the vendor, while Sinko argued it acted only as a sourcing agent. The court, presided over by Justice MPH Rubin, found that Sinko Technologies was indeed the contracting party and thus liable for the breach. The court awarded judgment in favor of Trigen Industries for US$134,400 plus US$15,360, with interest and costs.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for the Plaintiff

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Trigen Industries sued Sinko Technologies for breach of contract over undelivered computer chips. The court found Sinko was the contracting party, not a mere agent.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Trigen Industries LtdPlaintiffCorporationJudgment for the PlaintiffWon
Sinko Technologies Pte LtdDefendantCorporationJudgment against the DefendantLost
T & M InternationalDefendantCorporationNo judgment soughtNeutral

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
MPH RubinJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Harold SeetHarold Seet & Indra Raj
Indra RajHarold Seet & Indra Raj
S H AlmenoarTan Rajah & Cheah
Michelle JeganathanTan Rajah & Cheah

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiffs wanted to purchase 1,920 computer chips for resale.
  2. Plaintiffs enlisted the assistance of a Singapore commission agent, Sean Lim.
  3. Sean Lim sent out a mass email to prospective suppliers.
  4. First defendants responded with an email offering the chips.
  5. Plaintiffs forwarded their purchase order to the first defendants.
  6. Plaintiffs remitted US$134,400 to T & M International.
  7. The goods were not dispatched to the plaintiffs.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Trigen Industries Ltd v Sinko Technologies Pte Ltd and another, Suit No 968 of 2000, [2002] SGHC 252

6. Timeline

DateEvent
First defendants sent an email to Sean Lim offering computer chips.
First defendants sent email with quotation to plaintiffs.
Proforma invoice from T & M International to plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs forwarded purchase order to first defendants.
Plaintiffs informed first defendants of telegraphic transfer arrangement.
First defendants sent email stating second defendants were their branch office.
Plaintiffs remitted US$134,400 to T & M International.
JB Lee of T & M International wrote to first defendants regarding payment to Intel U.S.
Plaintiffs protested to first defendants regarding the delay.
Plaintiffs wrote to first defendants conveying customers' demand for compensation.
First defendants made a police report.
Plaintiffs' solicitors sent a demand letter to the first defendants.
Plaintiffs received a letter of demand from their customers.
First defendants' solicitors replied to plaintiffs' solicitors.
First defendants sent a letter to T & M International.
Commercial Affairs Department informed first defendants no criminal offence disclosed.
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found that the first defendants breached the contract by failing to deliver the computer chips.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to deliver goods
      • Repudiation of contract
  2. Privity of Contract
    • Outcome: The court held that the first defendants entered into the contract with the plaintiffs as the contracting party, not as sourcing agents or intermediaries.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Whether first defendants were contracting party
      • Whether first defendants acted as sourcing agents
  3. Estoppel
    • Outcome: The court held that the plaintiffs were not estopped from proceeding against the first defendants as a result of paragraph five of their statement of claim because there had not been any unequivocal election by the plaintiffs.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Alternative pleading
      • Election

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Refund of amount paid for goods
  2. Compensation for losses suffered

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Electronics

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Bulsing Ltd v Joon Seng & CoHigh CourtYes[1972] 2 MLJ 43MalaysiaCited for the principle that in breach of contract, plaintiffs are entitled to be put in the same position as if the contract had been completed.
Clarkson, Booker Ltd v AndjelEnglish Court of AppealYes[1964] 3 All ER 260England and WalesCited for the principle that election must be unequivocal and final election would not take place until the party had obtained judgment against one party.
Teheran-Europe Co Ltd v S T Belton (Tractors) LtdCourt of AppealYes[1968] 2 All ER 886England and WalesCited for the principle of determining who is entitled to sue or be sued on a contract by looking at the contract itself.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Computer chips
  • Purchase order
  • Sourcing agents
  • Intermediaries
  • Telegraphic transfer
  • Proforma invoice
  • Vendors

15.2 Keywords

  • breach of contract
  • computer chips
  • agency
  • sale of goods
  • singapore
  • commercial litigation

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Contract Law75
Breach of Contract75
Sale of Goods65
Commercial Law60
Privity of contract55
Commercial Disputes50
Agency Law45
Evidence40
Estoppel35
Civil Procedure30

16. Subjects

  • Contract Law
  • Agency Law
  • Sale of Goods