Communication Design International Ltd v Swarovski Management Pte Ltd: Breach of Oral Agreement Dispute

Communication Design International Ltd (CDI) sued Swarovski Management Pte Ltd in the High Court of Singapore, alleging breach of an oral agreement concerning the purchase and warehousing of display showcases. CDI claimed that Swarovski Management had agreed to a 'Buy Back Term,' requiring them to purchase remaining stock in the event of termination. Woo Bih Li J dismissed CDI's claim, finding the evidence of the oral agreement, particularly the Buy Back Term, unpersuasive. The court also rejected CDI's corollary claims for rental charges, insurance premiums, and advertising expenses.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

CDI’s claims were dismissed with costs.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

CDI sued Swarovski Management for breach of an oral agreement regarding inventory buy-back. The court dismissed CDI's claim, finding insufficient evidence of the agreement.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Woo Bih LiJudgeYes

4. Counsels

4. Facts

  1. CDI claimed Swarovski Management breached an oral agreement to buy back unsold inventory.
  2. The alleged oral agreement was purportedly made in or around the year 2000.
  3. CDI purchased display showcases and spare parts from Shopex BV for Swarovski Management.
  4. Swarovski Management denied the existence of the Buy Back Term.
  5. CDI sought $251,163.77 for remaining showcases and parts.
  6. CDI also sought the difference in currency exchange rates for showcases purchased by Swarovski Management.
  7. CDI claimed rental and insurance costs for warehousing the showcases and parts.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Communication Design International Ltd v Swarovski Management Pte Ltd, Suit No 452 of 2010, [2011] SGHC 110

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Alleged oral agreement entered into between CDI and Swarovski Management.
CDI provided with forecasts of projects from Swarovski Management.
CDI provided with forecasts of projects from Swarovski Management.
CDI provided with forecasts of projects from Swarovski Management.
Shopfitter Services – Framework Agreement became valid.
Swarovski AG decided to adopt the Crystal Forest concept.
CDI notified of change from R&B Concept to CF Concept.
Tender evaluation stage completed for Crystal Forest concept.
Tender evaluation stage completed for Crystal Forest concept.
Swarovski AG informed CDI that Swarovski Management would cease to engage CDI for its inventory purchasing and warehousing services.
CDI commenced legal action against Swarovski Management.
Series of correspondence exchanged between the parties’ solicitors.
Series of correspondence exchanged between the parties’ solicitors.
Swarovski Management purchased some of the balance Show Cases and Parts.
Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found that CDI failed to establish an agreement on the Buy Back Term and dismissed the claim.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Existence of oral agreement
      • Terms of oral agreement

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages
  2. Rental charges for warehousing
  3. Insurance premiums

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Retail

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
No cited cases

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

  • Oral Agreement
  • Buy Back Term
  • Show Cases and Parts
  • Inventory Purchasing and Warehousing Services
  • Red and Blue Concept
  • Crystal Forest Concept

15.2 Keywords

  • oral agreement
  • buy back
  • inventory
  • Swarovski
  • breach of contract

17. Areas of Law

16. Subjects

  • Contract Dispute
  • Inventory Management