MovingU v Trans-Cab: Breach of Contract & Mobile Credit Card Reader Dispute
MovingU Pte Ltd sued Trans-Cab Services Pte Ltd in the High Court of Singapore on 28 November 2011, alleging breach of contract for the rental of mobile credit card reading devices. Trans-Cab counterclaimed for a refund, damages, and a declaration that it validly terminated the contract. The court, presided over by Andrew Ang J, dismissed MovingU's claim and allowed Trans-Cab's counterclaim, finding that Trans-Cab validly terminated the contract due to the units not being of satisfactory quality.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Plaintiff's action is dismissed with costs; remedies prayed for in the Defendant's counterclaim are granted with damages to be assessed by the Registrar.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
MovingU sued Trans-Cab for breach of contract over mobile credit card readers. The court dismissed MovingU's claim and allowed Trans-Cab's counterclaim, finding Trans-Cab validly terminated the contract.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MovingU Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Claim Dismissed | Lost | R S Bajwa, Alan Shankar |
| Trans-Cab Services Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Counterclaim Allowed | Won | Philip Ling, Lim Khoon |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Andrew Ang | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| R S Bajwa | Bajwa & Co |
| Alan Shankar | Alan Shankar & Lim LLC |
| Philip Ling | Wong Tan & Molly Lim LLC |
| Lim Khoon | Lim Hua Yong & Co |
4. Facts
- MovingU and Trans-Cab entered into a Rental Agreement for mobile credit card terminals.
- The Rental Agreement stipulated that the units should be enabled to accept payment via credit cards, debit cards, and corporate cards.
- Trans-Cab rejected the second batch of units delivered by MovingU, claiming they were not compatible.
- The court found that the second batch units had been tampered with.
- The court determined that MovingU failed to prove that Trans-Cab tampered with the units.
- The court found that the units were not of satisfactory quality as required by the Supply of Goods Act.
- Trans-Cab terminated the Rental Agreement pursuant to a clause allowing termination if MovingU failed to deliver units in working order.
5. Formal Citations
- MovingU Pte Ltd v Trans-Cab Services Pte Ltd, Suit No 409 of 2010, [2011] SGHC 254
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| MovingU commenced a legal action against Trans-Cab in Suit No 481 of 2008. | |
| MovingU and Trans-Cab entered into the Rental Agreement. | |
| MovingU delivered the first batch of 500 units to Trans-Cab. | |
| MovingU's solicitors wrote to Trans-Cab's solicitors reserving MovingU’s rights. | |
| Trans-Cab placed a second order with MovingU for 500 units. | |
| MovingU delivered the second batch of 500 units to Trans-Cab. | |
| Trans-Cab distributed 25 of the second batch units to its taxi drivers. | |
| Trans-Cab rejected the delivery of the second batch units via a letter from its solicitors. | |
| MovingU personnel attended Trans-Cab's premises to deploy units. | |
| MovingU took back the remaining second batch units from Trans-Cab. | |
| Gary Ng and Kim conducted functionality checks on the returned units. | |
| Gary Ng and Kim conducted functionality checks on the returned units. | |
| Ten of the units returned by Trans-Cab were sent to Ines in Korea for analysis. | |
| MovingU lodged a police report. | |
| MovingU personnel entered Trans-Cab’s premises and allegedly found broken electronic components. | |
| Ines released its analysis report. | |
| MovingU lodged another police report. | |
| Trans-Cab's solicitor gave notice to terminate the Rental Agreement. | |
| Merit Teletech conducted an examination of 350 of the second batch units. | |
| Merit Teletech released its analysis report. | |
| Trans-Cab engaged TÜV SÜD PSB to conduct an examination of 15 sample units. | |
| TÜV SÜD PSB released its analysis report. | |
| Judgment was delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that the Defendant did not breach the Rental Agreement because the units were not of satisfactory quality.
- Category: Substantive
- Wrongful Termination of Contract
- Outcome: The court held that the Defendant did not wrongfully terminate the Rental Agreement.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Loss of profits
- Damages
- Refund of moneys previously paid
- Declaration that the contract was validly terminated
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Transportation
- Financial Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No cited cases | |||||
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Supply of Goods Act (Cap 394, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Mobile credit card terminals
- Rental Agreement
- Tampering
- Enabling
- Satisfactory quality
- Termination
- Purchase order
- Delivery order
15.2 Keywords
- breach of contract
- mobile credit card reader
- taxi
- rental agreement
- termination
16. Subjects
- Contract Dispute
- Commercial Dispute
17. Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Commercial Law