Yaku Shin v Panasonic: Quantum Meruit & Contractual Obligations in Supply Chain Dispute

Yaku Shin (JB) Sdn Bhd (“YKJB”), a Malaysian company, sued Panasonic AVC Networks Singapore Pte Ltd (“PS”) and Panasonic Manufacturing Xiamen Co, Ltd (“PX”) in the High Court of Singapore, claiming US$1,286,299.29 for goods supplied. PS argued the contract was with Yaku Shin (M) Sdn Bhd (“YKM”), not YKJB, and counterclaimed for components supplied. PX also counterclaimed. The court, presided over by Justice Woo Bih Li, dismissed YKJB's main claim, finding the contract was between PS and YKM. The court also dismissed the counterclaims of PS and PX. YKJB was granted judgment for interest on US$13,148.80. The claim was based on contract and, alternatively, on quantum meruit.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Main claim of Yaku Shin (JB) Sdn Bhd dismissed; counterclaims by Panasonic AVC Networks Singapore Pte Ltd and Panasonic Manufacturing Xiamen Co, Ltd dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Malaysian company Yaku Shin sued Panasonic for goods supplied. The court dismissed the claim, finding the contract was with another entity.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Yaku Shin (JB) Sdn BhdPlaintiffCorporationClaim DismissedLost
Panasonic AVC Networks Singapore Pte LtdDefendantCorporationCounterclaim DismissedNeutral
Panasonic Manufacturing Xiamen Co, LtdDefendantCorporationCounterclaim DismissedNeutral

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Woo Bih LiJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Manjit SinghManjit Govind & Partners
Sree Govind MenonManjit Govind & Partners
Melvin SeeRodyk & Davidson LLP
Tan Teck WangRodyk & Davidson LLP
Sharon LiuRodyk & Davidson LLP

4. Facts

  1. YKJB claimed US$1,286,299.29 from PS for goods supplied between September 2005 and February 2006.
  2. PS argued that the contract was with YKM, not YKJB.
  3. PS made a contingent counterclaim for components supplied to YKJB.
  4. PX also made a contingent counterclaim for components supplied to YKJB.
  5. PS had been issuing purchase orders to YKM through an internal portal.
  6. YKJB was using Tool and Die equipment lent by PS to YKM.
  7. Payments for the goods were initially made by PS to YKM.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Yaku Shin (JB) Sdn Bhd v Panasonic AVC Networks Singapore Pte Ltd and Another, Suit 379/2006, [2008] SGHC 87

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Basic Contract signed between PS and YKM
Basic Contract expired
2003 Tri-Party Agreement signed between PS, YKM and Panasonic Taiwan
2004 Tri-Party Agreement signed between Panasonic Taiwan, YKJB and Panasonic JB
2005 Tri-Party Agreement signed between PS, YKM and PX
YKJB started supplying goods to PS
Receivers and Managers of YKM appointed
Teh sent letter to PS regarding payment to YKJB
Ngoh sent email to Teh regarding payment instruction request
Teh responded to Ngoh's email
Meeting held between Teh, Ngoh, Clement Soh and Chen
Chellam Wong, acting for YKM, sent a letter of demand to PS
Koid handed Ngoh a document informing Ngoh of the total amount which YKJB was claiming to be due from PS
Koid met with Ngoh at PS's office
Rodyk & Davidson replied to Chellam Wong's letter of demand
Manjit Govind & Partners, acting for YKJB, sent a letter of demand to PS
Rodyk & Davidson replied to dispute the claim
Writ of Summons filed
PS paid US$85,768.52 to YKJB
Another sum of US$13,148.80 was paid
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Quantum Meruit
    • Outcome: The court held that YKJB's claim on a quantum meruit basis failed because PS was not unjustly enriched, as PS's liability was to YKM.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [1978] 85 DLR 186
      • [2007] 2 SLR 655
  2. Contractual Obligations
    • Outcome: The court found that the contract for the disputed transactions was between PS and YKM, not YKJB.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Quantum Meruit

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Manufacturing
  • Electronics

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Morrison-Knudsen Co Inc v British Columbia Hydro and Power AuthorityBritish Columbia Court of AppealYes[1978] 85 DLR 186CanadaCited regarding the entitlement to claim on a quantum meruit basis when an election has been made to sue on the basis of an asserted contract.
Scarf v JardineHouse of LordsYes[1882] 7 HL 345United KingdomCited regarding the election of a cause of action.
Rabiah Bee bte Mohamed Ibrahim v Salem IbrahimSingapore Court of AppealYes[2007] 2 SLR 655SingaporeCited for the proposition that there are two categories of quantum meruit: contractual and restitutionary.
Lee Siong Kee v Beng Tiong Trading, Import and Export [1988] Pte LtdSingapore Court of AppealYes[2000] 4 SLR 559SingaporeCited in Rabiah Bee bte Mohamed Ibrahim v Salem Ibrahim [2007] 2 SLR 655 regarding a claim for a quantum meruit on a restitutionary basis.

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

  • Quantum Meruit
  • Purchase Order
  • Receivership
  • Tool and Die
  • Tri-Party Agreement
  • Vendor Code
  • Standard Tax Invoice
  • Component Parts
  • Semi-Products
  • E-Procurement System

15.2 Keywords

  • Quantum Meruit
  • Contract
  • Panasonic
  • Yaku Shin
  • Supply Chain
  • Singapore
  • High Court
  • Breach of Contract
  • Restitution
  • Agency

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Contract Law80
Quantum meruit75
Breach of Contract70
Commercial Disputes60
Unjust Enrichment40
Estoppel30
Agency Law30
Crossclaims20

16. Subjects

  • Contract Law
  • Restitution
  • Agency
  • Supply Chain