Smartbus v Yeap Transport: Dispute over CNG Bus Purchase Agreement

Smartbus Pte Ltd sued Yeap Transport Pte Ltd in the High Court of Singapore on May 23, 2011, alleging breach of contract for failing to purchase 40 compressed natural gas (CNG) buses. Smartbus claimed Yeap Transport agreed to buy the buses in January 2008. Yeap Transport denied the agreement, stating they only agreed to assist Smartbus in selling the buses to subcontractors. The court, Judith Prakash J, dismissed Smartbus's claim for breach of contract, finding no binding agreement existed for the purchase of all 40 buses. However, the court entered judgment for Smartbus for $79,820, representing the outstanding balance for two buses Yeap Transport did purchase.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff in part; claim for breach of contract dismissed, but judgment entered for outstanding payment on two buses.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Smartbus sues Yeap Transport over a disputed agreement to purchase 40 CNG buses. The court found no binding agreement existed.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Smartbus Pte LtdPlaintiffCorporationClaim Dismissed in part, Judgment for outstanding paymentPartialKoh Swee Yen, Sim Hui Shan
Yeap Transport Pte LtdDefendantCorporationJudgment against Defendant for outstanding paymentLostTan Chau Yee, Bernice Tan

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Judith PrakashJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Koh Swee YenWongPartnership LLP
Sim Hui ShanWongPartnership LLP
Tan Chau YeeHarry Elias Partnership
Bernice TanHarry Elias Partnership

4. Facts

  1. Smartbus claimed Yeap Transport agreed in January 2008 to buy 40 CNG buses at $172,000 each.
  2. Yeap Transport denied the agreement, stating they only agreed to assist Smartbus in selling the buses.
  3. Yeap Transport purchased two buses from Smartbus in May and July 2009.
  4. Smartbus claimed Yeap Transport owed $79,820 for the two buses.
  5. Yeap Transport argued written agreements reduced the price of the two buses due to discounts.
  6. The court found the written agreements were not authorized by Smartbus.
  7. Yeap Transport was contracted by the Singapore American School as the sole school bus contractor until 2012.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Smartbus Pte Ltd v Yeap Transport Pte Ltd, Suit No 306 of 2010, [2011] SGHC 129

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Smartbus Pte Ltd incorporated
InfoWave, Yeap Tech, and Mr. Yeap executed a memorandum of understanding
Discussions between Mr. Chay and Mr. Yeap regarding purchasing CNG buses
Smartbus became a subsidiary of InfoWave
Plaintiff's board decided to import CNG buses from Shenlong
Mr. Yeap sent an email enclosing a letter stating Yeap Transport would purchase 40 buses from Smartbus
Contract concluded with Shenlong for the purchase of 40 CNG buses
Goldbell sent Ms. Ng an email with a payment flowchart attached
Mr. Yeap requested a loan of $400,000 from the plaintiff
Smartbus took delivery of 12 buses between April 2008 and April 2009
Written agreement for the purchase of the first bus
Defendant took delivery of one bus from the plaintiff
Written agreement for the purchase of the second bus
Defendant took delivery of a second bus from the plaintiff
Meeting between Mr. Chay, Ms. Ng, Mr. Yeap, and Ms. Tan regarding the purchase of buses
Payment of $32,365 made
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found that no binding agreement existed for the purchase of all 40 buses and dismissed the claim for breach of contract.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Enforceability of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found that the terms of the alleged agreement were uncertain, particularly regarding the quantity of buses to be purchased by the defendant versus its subcontractors, rendering the agreement unenforceable.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages
  2. Specific Performance

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Transportation

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Gay Choon Ing v Loh Sze Ti Terence Peter and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2009] 2 SLR(R) 332SingaporeCited for the principle that a contract requires an identifiable agreement that is complete and certain, consideration, and an intention to create legal relations.
Projection Pte Ltd v The Tai Ping Insurance Co LtdCourt of AppealYes[2001] 1 SLR(R) 798SingaporeCited for the principle that the court should examine the whole of the documents to decide whether the parties reached an agreement on all material terms.
Port Sudan Cotton Co v Govindaswamy Chettiar & SonsN/AYes[1972] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 5N/ACited for the principle that the court should examine the whole of the documents to decide whether the parties reached an agreement on all material terms.
Foley v Classique Coaches LtdN/AYes[1934] 2 KB 1N/ACited for the principle that there is no binding obligation unless all the material terms of the contract are agreed.
Midlink Development Pte Ltd v Stansfield Group Pte LtdN/AYes[2004] 4 SLR(R) 258SingaporeCited for the principle that the touchstone is whether the conduct of the parties, objectively ascertained, supports the existence of a contract.
Brown v DunnN/AYes(1894) 6 R 69N/ACited regarding the rule in Brown v Dunn, concerning cross-examination of witnesses.

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

  • Compressed Natural Gas Buses
  • CNG Buses
  • Sub-contractors
  • Letter of Comfort
  • Showroom Buses
  • Overtrade Discount

15.2 Keywords

  • contract
  • buses
  • CNG
  • agreement
  • Smartbus
  • Yeap Transport

16. Subjects

  • Contract Dispute
  • Sale of Goods
  • Commercial Litigation

17. Areas of Law

  • Contract Law
  • Commercial Law