Eng Hui Cheh David v Opera Gallery: Misrepresentation & Breach of Contract in Art Sale
Eng Hui Cheh David appealed to the Court of Appeal of Singapore against the decision of the Judge in Eng Hui Cheh David v Opera Gallery Pte Ltd. The appeal concerned allegations of misrepresentation and breach of contract by Opera Gallery Pte Ltd regarding the sale of a limited edition Rodin sculpture. The court, delivered by Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA, dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of misrepresentation or breach of contract. The court held that the appellant was free to keep and dispose of the sculpture as he wished.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding misrepresentation and breach of contract in the sale of a Rodin sculpture. The court dismissed the appeal, finding no misrepresentation.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eng Hui Cheh David | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Opera Gallery Pte Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chan Sek Keong | Chief Justice | No |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| V K Rajah | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Eng Hui Cheh David purchased a limited edition Rodin sculpture (4/25) from Opera Gallery Pte Ltd.
- David claimed Opera Gallery misrepresented that 4/25 was the only piece available for sale in a private collection.
- Opera Gallery delivered another piece (12/25) to David as a substitute for 4/25 due to alleged imperfections.
- David rejected 12/25 and sought to rescind the contract, claiming misrepresentation and breach of contract.
- David alleged defects in 4/25, including discoloration and a hairline crack.
- The court viewed 4/25 and found no evidence of a hairline crack.
5. Formal Citations
- Eng Hui Cheh David v Opera Gallery Pte Ltd, CA 69/2009, [2009] SGCA 49
- Eng Hui Cheh David v Opera Gallery Pte Ltd, , [2009] SGHC 121
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Opera Gallery made representations to Eng Hui Cheh David about the 4/25 Edition. | |
| Opera Gallery delivered sculpture 12/25 to Eng Hui Cheh David. | |
| Opera Gallery made it clear to Eng Hui Cheh David that it was always willing, able and ready to reinstate sculpture 4/25. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Misrepresentation
- Outcome: The court found no evidence that the respondent misrepresented to the appellant that the sculpture was the only one available for sale.
- Category: Substantive
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that the appellant was not entitled to terminate the contract upon delivery of a substitute sculpture, as time was not of the essence and the respondent was willing to reinstate the original sculpture.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Rescission of Contract
9. Cause of Actions
- Misrepresentation
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Art
- Retail
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eng Hui Cheh David v Opera Gallery Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2009] SGHC 121 | Singapore | The decision of the lower court that was being appealed. |
| Wishing Star Ltd v Jurong Town Corp | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR 909 | Singapore | Cited regarding the award of damages in the context of fraudulent misrepresentation or deceit. |
| Tullio v Maoro | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] 2 SLR 489 | Singapore | Endorsed the principles set out in the English Court of Appeal decision of Re Elgindata Ltd (No 2) [1992] 1 WLR 1207 regarding costs. |
| Forefront Medical Technology (Pte) Ltd v Modern-Pak Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR 927 | Singapore | Parties ought, wherever possible, to reduce their entire agreement into writing or suffer the legal consequences of not doing so. |
| Re Elgindata Ltd (No 2) | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] 1 WLR 1207 | England and Wales | Regarding costs. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misrepresentation Act (Cap 390, 1994 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Rodin sculpture
- Misrepresentation
- Breach of contract
- Limited edition
- Exclusivity
- 4/25
- 12/25
- Patina
- Hairline crack
15.2 Keywords
- Contract
- Misrepresentation
- Sculpture
- Art
- Singapore
- Appeal
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Contract Law | 90 |
| Misrepresentation | 80 |
| Breach of Contract | 75 |
| Damages | 50 |
| Art Law | 40 |
| Estoppel | 30 |
| Sale of Goods | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Contract Dispute
- Sale of Goods
- Art Law