Smith & Associates v Britestone: Breach of Contract & Damages for Counterfeit Electronic Components

In Smith & Associates Far East, Ltd v Britestone Pte Ltd, the Singapore High Court heard a case regarding the breach of contract. Smith & Associates, the plaintiff, sued Britestone, the defendant, for supplying counterfeit capacitors. The court had previously entered a consent judgment in favor of the plaintiff on the issue of liability. The remaining issue was the assessment of damages. The court awarded US$302,184 in damages to the plaintiff, comprising US$2,184 for loss of profits and US$300,000 for compensation paid to Celestica Thailand Ltd.

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

Singapore High Court case involving Smith & Associates and Britestone, concerning breach of contract due to counterfeit capacitors and the assessment of damages.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Britestone Pte LtdDefendantCorporationClaim DismissedLost
Smith & Associates Far East, LtdPlaintiffCorporationJudgment for PlaintiffWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Dorcas QuekAssistant RegistrarYes

4. Counsels

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiff purchased 52,000 units of capacitors from Defendant.
  2. The capacitors were discovered to be counterfeit.
  3. Plaintiff resold the capacitors to Celestica Thailand Ltd (CTH).
  4. CTH installed the capacitors on printed circuit boards and sent them to EMC Corporation.
  5. EMC incurred costs of US$444,680 to purge the counterfeit capacitors.
  6. Plaintiff and CTH agreed to a settlement of US$300,000.
  7. Parties agreed that an implied condition that the goods conform to their description had been breached.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Smith & Associates Far East, Ltd v Britestone Pte Ltd, Suit 108/2005, NA 45/2006, [2006] SGHC 186

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Plaintiff purchased capacitors from Defendant.
Capacitors discovered to be counterfeit.
Agreement entered for Plaintiff to pay US$300,000 to Celestica Thailand Ltd.
Plaintiff commenced proceedings against Defendant.
Consent judgment entered for liability to be resolved in Plaintiff's favor.
Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found that the defendant breached the implied condition of the agreement.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Breach of implied condition of conformity to description
  2. Remoteness of Damages
    • Outcome: The court applied the principles of remoteness of damages to determine the quantum of damages.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Damages for Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court awarded damages for loss of profits and compensation paid to the sub-buyer.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Loss of profits
      • Compensation paid to sub-buyer

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Electronics

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Popular Industries Ltd v Eastern Garment Manufacturing Sdn BhdUnknownYes[1989] 3 MLJ 360MalaysiaCited for the principle that damages claimed must be caused by the defendant's breach and not be too remote.
Hadley v BaxendaleCourt of ExchequerYes[1854] 9 Ex 341EnglandCited for the principle of remoteness of damages, stating that only damages within the contemplation of both parties may be recovered.
Bence Graphics International Ltd v Fasson UK LtdQueen's BenchYes[1988] QB 87United KingdomCited regarding special damages under s 54 of the Sale of Goods Act and the prima facie measure of damages.
Richard Holden Ltd v Bostock & Co LtdUnknownYes[1902] 17 TLR 317United KingdomCited for the principle of awarding loss of profits under a sub-sale if within the reasonable contemplation of the parties.
Biggin & Co Ltd v Permanite Ltd & OrsCourt of AppealYes[1951] 2 KB 314EnglandCited for the principle that a reasonable settlement should be recoverable as damages payable by the seller to the buyer.
Brown Noel Trading Pte Ltd v Donald & McArthy Pte LtdSingapore Court of AppealYes[1997] 1 SLR 1SingaporeCited for adopting the holding in Biggin that a reasonable settlement is recoverable as damages.
Unity Insurance Brokers Pty Limited v Rocco Pezzano Pty LimitedAustralian High CourtYes[1998] 193 CLR 603AustraliaCited as questioning the reasoning in Biggin regarding causation and remoteness.
White Industries QLD Pty Ltd v Hennessey Glass & Aluminium Systems Pty LtdAustralian Court of AppealYes[1999] 1 QdR 210AustraliaCited as questioning the extent to which Biggin qualifies the proposition that a reasonable settlement is recoverable.
Christopher Hill Ltd v Ashington Piggeries LtdUnknownYes[1969] 3 All ER 1496United KingdomCited for the principle that a contract-breaker need not contemplate the precise manner of damage occurring, only that damage of that kind is not unlikely.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Sale of Goods Act (Cap 393, 199 Rev Ed)Singapore
Sale of Goods Act (Cap 393, 199 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Counterfeit capacitors
  • Breach of implied condition
  • Remoteness of damages
  • Reasonable settlement
  • String contracts
  • Purging process
  • Printed circuit boards

15.2 Keywords

  • counterfeit
  • capacitors
  • breach of contract
  • damages
  • settlement
  • electronic components

17. Areas of Law

16. Subjects

  • Contract Law
  • Sale of Goods
  • Damages