Diva XL v Lalasis: Refund of Deposit for Non-Delivery of Computer Products

Diva XL Pte Ltd sued Lalasis Trading Pte Ltd in the High Court of Singapore on April 25, 2003, seeking a refund of deposits and damages for breach of contract due to non-delivery of computer products ('Pentium P4 CPU'). Diva XL claimed that it paid deposits for two contracts but Lalasis failed to deliver the goods. Lalasis argued that the deposits were conditional on settling a debt owed by Fifth Avenue Electronics to Zirco International. The court found in favor of Diva XL, ordering Lalasis to refund S$384,930 and pay damages of US$43,200 and S$100.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Diva XL sued Lalasis for a refund of deposits paid for undelivered computer products. The court ruled in favor of Diva XL, ordering a refund and damages for breach of contract.

1.7 Decision Date

24 April 2003

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Diva XL Pte Ltd	Plaintiff	Corporation	Judgment for Plaintiff	Won	Philip Jeyaretnam, Goh Peng Fong
Lalasis Trading Pte Ltd	Defendant	Corporation	Counterclaim Dismissed	Lost	S Karthikeyan

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Choo Han Teck	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Philip Jeyaretnam	Rodyk & Davidson
Goh Peng Fong	Rodyk & Davidson
S Karthikeyan	Karthikeyan & Co

4. Facts

Diva XL and Lalasis are private limited companies trading in computer products.
Diva XL claimed a refund of deposits paid to Lalasis for 'Pentium P4 CPU's.
Two contracts were formed for the purchase of CPU's.
The first contract was for 3,000 CPU's, with a partial delivery of 2,000.
The second contract was for 2,880 CPU's, with no delivery.
Lalasis claimed the deposits were conditional on settling a debt owed by Fifth Avenue to Zirco.
The court found that the contracts did not indicate that payment must be made in advance of delivery.

5. Formal Citations

Diva XL Pte Ltd v Lalasis Trading Pte Ltd, Suit 929/2002, [2003] SGHC 97

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2002-03-01	Sale of blenders by the defendant to the plaintiff.
2002-06-10	First contract for the purchase of 3,000 pieces of CPU's was made.
2002-06-11	Plaintiff made a payment of $100,000 to the defendant.
2002-06-12	Delivery of goods under the first contract was delayed and subsequently only partly fulfilled.
2002-06-12	Plaintiff made a payment of $850,000 to the defendant.
2002-06-25	Second contract for 2,880 CPU's was made.
2002-06-28	Goods were to be delivered under the second contract.
2003-04-25	Judgment date.

7. Legal Issues

Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that the defendant had failed to deliver the goods as contracted and was in breach of contract.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Non-delivery of goods
Refund of Deposit
- Outcome: The court ordered the defendant to refund the deposit paid by the plaintiff.
- Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

Refund of Deposit
Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

Computer Products Trading

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Satli bin Masot v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[1999] 2 SLR 637	Singapore	Cited regarding the court's discretion to draw adverse inferences from the failure to call a witness.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Evidence Act, Ch 97	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Pentium P4 CPU
Deposit
Non-delivery
Breach of contract
Purchase order

15.2 Keywords

Contract
Sale of goods
Non-delivery
Refund
Deposit
Computer products

16. Subjects

Contract Law
Sale of Goods
Commercial Dispute

17. Areas of Law

Contract Law
Sale of Goods