Comfort Resources v Alliance Concrete: Breach of Sand Supply Contract Dispute
In a consolidated suit before the High Court of Singapore on 2008-08-05, Comfort Resources Pte Ltd sued Alliance Concrete Singapore Pte Ltd for breach of contract, seeking payment for sand delivered and loss of profits due to under-ordering. Alliance Concrete counter-sued, alleging Comfort Resources failed to supply contracted quantities. The court found Alliance Concrete in repudiatory breach for under-ordering and late payments, awarding Comfort Resources $163,696.67 and interlocutory judgment for breach of contract, while dismissing Alliance Concrete's claim.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff (Comfort Resources); Defendant's (Alliance Concrete) claim dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment reserved
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court case involving Comfort Resources and Alliance Concrete over a sand supply contract, focusing on breach and repudiation claims.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comfort Resources Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | John Seow, Lim Ming Yi |
| Alliance Concrete Singapore Pte Ltd | Defendant, Plaintiff | Corporation | Claim Dismissed | Lost | Winston Kwek, Eileen Lam |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Lai Siu Chiu | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| John Seow | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Lim Ming Yi | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Winston Kwek | Rajah & Tann LLP |
| Eileen Lam | Rajah & Tann LLP |
4. Facts
- Comfort Resources contracted to sell sand to Alliance Concrete.
- Alliance Concrete failed to make timely payments for sand deliveries.
- Alliance Concrete failed to order the minimum quantities of sand as stipulated in the contract.
- Alliance Concrete claimed Comfort Resources short-delivered sand.
- Comfort Resources stopped deliveries due to non-payment.
- Alliance Concrete purchased sand from another supplier, Lim Chye Heng Sand & Granite Pte Ltd.
- Alliance Concrete was contractually bound to order a minimum of 30,000 mt and a maximum of 50,000 mt from both Comfort and LCH every month.
5. Formal Citations
- Comfort Resources Pte Ltd v Alliance Concrete Singapore Pte Ltd and Another Suit, Suit 601/2006, 604/2006, [2008] SGHC 122
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Alliance Concrete sent a letter to Comfort Resources, evidencing a contract. | |
| Comfort Resources countersigned the letter from Alliance Concrete, accepting the contract. | |
| Contract period began. | |
| Alliance Concrete failed to pay for deliveries made in May. | |
| First meeting between Comfort Resources and Alliance Concrete. | |
| Second meeting between Comfort Resources and Alliance Concrete. | |
| Alliance Concrete paid the April 2006 invoices after the second meeting. | |
| Comfort Resources stopped deliveries of sand to Alliance Concrete. | |
| Alliance Concrete wrote to Comfort Resources alleging short-deliveries. | |
| Alliance Concrete wrote to Comfort Resources alleging short-delivery of sand. | |
| Comfort Resources sent a letter to Alliance Concrete demanding payment and threatening to treat the contract as repudiated. | |
| Comfort Resources sent a letter to Alliance Concrete stating it considered Alliance as having repudiated the contract. | |
| Alliance Concrete's solicitors sent a letter denying failure to make payments and alleging Comfort Resources was in repudiatory breach. | |
| Both companies commenced proceedings. | |
| Comfort Resources applied for summary judgment. | |
| Alliance Concrete applied for judgment with damages to be assessed. | |
| Alliance Concrete filed its first supplementary list of documents. | |
| Alliance Concrete claimed that the rest of the F-10 forms for Toa Payoh and Queenstown plants for the period 1 August 2006 to 31 January 2007 and the F-10 forms for the other three plants for the period 1 February 2006 to 31 January 2007 were last in their possession before 1 May 2007. | |
| Contract period ended. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that Alliance Concrete was in breach of contract due to repeated late payments and under-ordering of sand.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to make timely payment
- Failure to order minimum quantities
- Repudiation
- Outcome: The court determined that Alliance Concrete's actions constituted a repudiation of the contract, which Comfort Resources validly accepted.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
- Loss of Profits
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Decro-Wall International SA v Practitioners in Marketing Ltd | UK Court of Appeal | Yes | [1971] 2 All ER 216 | United Kingdom | Cited to determine whether the breach by Alliance Concrete was fundamental enough to constitute repudiation of the contract, particularly in relation to late payments. |
| Brani Readymixed Pte Ltd v Yee Hong Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 1 SLR 205 | Singapore | Cited regarding whether a delay in payment entitles the seller to terminate the contract. |
| Kool Team Marketing v Pacific Sunwear Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR 243 | Singapore | Cited regarding whether a failure to make prompt payment allows the seller to stop supplying goods. |
| Maple Flock Company Ltd v Universal Furniture Products (Wembley) Limited | UK Court of Appeal | Yes | [1934] 1 KB 148 | United Kingdom | Cited for the tests to determine whether a breach is fundamental and goes to the root of the contract, focusing on the ratio of the breach to the contract as a whole and the probability of repetition. |
| Browne v Dunne | N/A | Yes | (1893) 6 R 67 | N/A | Cited regarding the rule that a party cannot raise an issue in submissions if it was not challenged during cross-examination. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Sale of Goods Act (Cap 393, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Sand supply contract
- Repudiatory breach
- Short delivery
- Under-ordering
- Late payment
- Liquidated damages
- Force majeure
- Contract quantity
- Outstanding sum
- Material Intake Record Book
15.2 Keywords
- contract
- breach
- sand
- supply
- repudiation
- payment
- delivery
- Comfort Resources
- Alliance Concrete
16. Subjects
- Contract Dispute
- Sale of Goods
- Breach of Contract
- Repudiation
17. Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Sale of Goods