Anti-Corrosion Pte Ltd v Berger Paints: Defective Paint, Express Warranty & Causation in Construction Dispute
In Anti-Corrosion Pte Ltd v Berger Paints Singapore Pte Ltd, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard an appeal by Anti-Corrosion Pte Ltd ("Anti-Corrosion"), a painting subcontractor, against the High Court's decision dismissing its claim against Berger Paints Singapore Pte Ltd ("Berger Paints"), a paint manufacturer. Anti-Corrosion sought reimbursement for losses incurred in repainting surfaces due to discolouration allegedly caused by defective paint supplied by Berger Paints. Berger Paints counterclaimed for the outstanding balance on the paint. The Court of Appeal allowed Anti-Corrosion's appeal, finding that Berger Paints had breached an express warranty that its paint was fit for use without a sealer coat, and that the paint's defects caused the discolouration. The court dismissed Berger Paint's cross-appeal and remitted the assessment of damages to the lower court.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Written Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Court of Appeal case regarding defective paint supplied for a construction project, focusing on breach of contract, express warranty, and causation.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anti-Corrosion Pte Ltd | Appellant, Respondent | Corporation | Appeal Allowed | Won | |
| Berger Paints Singapore Pte Ltd | Respondent, Appellant | Corporation | Cross-Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| V K Rajah | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Anti-Corrosion was contracted to paint the Bukit Batok project's internal and external surfaces.
- Berger Paints supplied Decora Emulsion paint for the internal surfaces.
- Berger Paints' proposal for the paint system did not include a sealer coat.
- Joseph Yong verbally assured Vincent Lim that a sealer coat was unnecessary.
- Joseph Yong provided a five-year warranty on the paint.
- The paint discoloured on the internal surfaces after application.
- Anti-Corrosion repainted the surfaces using paint from another manufacturer.
5. Formal Citations
- Anti-Corrosion Pte Ltd v Berger Paints Singapore Pte Ltd, Civil Appeal Nos 224 and 240 of 2010 (Suit No 989 of 2009), [2011] SGCA 57
- Anti-Corrosion Pte Ltd v Berger Paints Singapore Pte Ltd, , [2010] SGHC 351
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Respondent supplied paint to the Appellant for the painting of the external surfaces of a Toh Guan dormitory. | |
| Respondent proposed and supplied a paint system for the Toh Guan Road East Capital One project. | |
| Joseph Yong sent a letter stating that it is not necessary to apply a sealer coat before applying Berger Decora Emulsion. | |
| Joseph Yong sent a letter providing a five-year warranty on products used based on the proposed paint system. | |
| Joseph Yong approached Vincent Lim with a proposal to use the Respondent’s paint for the Bukit Batok project. | |
| Appellant was awarded the contract to paint the internal and external surfaces of the buildings by the main contractor, Eng Siang Lee Construction Co Pte Ltd. | |
| Painting works were carried out between September 2007 and April 2008. | |
| Painting works were carried out between September 2007 and April 2008. | |
| ESL complained to the Appellant that the paint on the internal surfaces had discoloured. | |
| Appellant relayed the complaint to the Respondent. | |
| Appellant reiterated the allegation that the Respondent’s paint was defective. | |
| Respondent denied its paint was defective. | |
| Appellant replied stating that its own investigations ruled out the presence of moisture content. | |
| Appellant filed its claim for reimbursement of costs incurred in repainting the affected surfaces. | |
| High Court decision in [2010] SGHC 351. | |
| Trial began. | |
| Trial concluded. | |
| Civil Appeal Nos 224 and 240 of 2010 (Suit No 989 of 2009) was filed. | |
| Judgment Reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal found that Berger Paints breached the express term of the contract that the paint would be free from defects and fit for application on the internal surfaces of the Bukit Batok project, without the need for a sealer coat.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Breach of express warranty
- Defective paint
- Failure to provide paint fit for purpose
- Causation
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal found that the defects in the paint were the 'but for' cause of the discolouration.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Factual causation
- But for test
- Parol Evidence Rule
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that the parol evidence rule did not preclude the incorporation of Joseph Yong’s statements to Vincent Lim into the contract.
- Category: Procedural
- Warranty
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal found that the 13 January 2006 letter constituted an express warranty applicable to future projects, including the Bukit Batok project.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Express warranty
- Scope of warranty
- Exemption Clauses
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that the express warranty took precedence over any exemption clauses in the tax invoices and delivery orders, preventing Berger Paints from limiting its liability.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Overriding effect of express warranty
8. Remedies Sought
- Reimbursement of costs for repainting
- Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Breach of Warranty
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Construction Disputes
11. Industries
- Construction
- Manufacturing
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anti-Corrosion Pte Ltd v Berger Paints Singapore Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2010] SGHC 351 | Singapore | Appeal from this decision. The High Court dismissed the subcontractor’s claim and allowed the manufacturer’s counterclaim. |
| Zurich Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd v B-Gold Interior Design & Construction Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR(R) 1029 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the parol evidence rule only applies where the contract was intended to contain all the terms of the agreement. |
| Heilbut, Symons & Co v Buckleton | House of Lords | Yes | [1913] AC 30 | England and Wales | Cited for the test of whether a statement has contractual force, focusing on the intention of the parties. |
| Dick Bentley Productions Ltd and Another v Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1965] 1 WLR 623 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a representation made to induce a party to enter a contract is prima facie a warranty. |
| Couchman v Hill | King's Bench | Yes | [1947] KB 554 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that an exemption clause can be overridden by an express warranty. |
| Sunny Metal & Engineering Pte Ltd v Ng Khim Ming Eric | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 3 SLR(R) 782 | Singapore | Cited for the application of the 'but for' test of causation in contract law. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Sale of Goods Act (Cap 393, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Decora Emulsion
- Sealer coat
- Warranty
- Paint discolouration
- Bukit Batok project
- Parol evidence rule
- Express warranty
- Defective paint
- Causation
- Formwork
15.2 Keywords
- paint
- discolouration
- warranty
- construction
- contract
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Breach of Contract | 90 |
| Contract Law | 80 |
| Contracts | 75 |
| Warranties | 70 |
| Warranty Law | 65 |
| Misrepresentation | 40 |
| Evidence | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Contract Law
- Construction Law
- Sale of Goods
- Warranty