Out of the Box v Wanin Industries: Breach of Contract & Damages for Defective Sports Drink
Out of the Box Pte Ltd sued Wanin Industries Pte Ltd in the High Court of Singapore for breach of contract. Wanin Industries supplied defective quantities of a sports drink called "18", leading to a product recall and discontinuation. Out of the Box claimed damages for advertising and promotional expenses. The court awarded damages to Out of the Box, including expenses for Groovy and Catalyst, but disallowed claims for Act Media and Clear Channel expenses, awarding nominal damages instead.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed; damages awarded to the plaintiff.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Out of the Box sued Wanin Industries for breach of contract due to defective sports drink production. The court awarded damages, including advertising expenses.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Out of the Box Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Judgment for Plaintiff | Partial | |
| Wanin Industries Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Judgment against Defendant | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Choo Han Teck | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Out of the Box Pte Ltd designed a sports drink known as “18”.
- Wanin Industries Pte Ltd was contracted to manufacture “18”.
- Wanin Industries supplied defective quantities of “18”.
- The Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore issued an advisory warning.
- Out of the Box recalled stocks of “18”.
- Out of the Box discontinued the brand “18”.
- Out of the Box incurred advertising and promotional expenses.
5. Formal Citations
- Out of the Box Pte Ltd v Wanin Industries Pte Ltd, Suit No 317 of 2009 (Registrar's Appeal No 326 of 2011 and Registrar' Appeal No 330 of 2011), [2012] SGHC 95
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Out of the Box Pte Ltd designed a sports drink known as “18”. | |
| Out of the Box negotiated with Act Media to use advertising credits for the promotion of “18”. | |
| Out of the Box placed bus-stop advertisements with Clear Channel. | |
| Stocks of “18” were recalled following an advisory warning. | |
| Out of the Box Pte Ltd discontinued the brand “18”. | |
| Suit No 317 of 2009 filed. | |
| Registrar's Appeal No 326 of 2011 and Registrar' Appeal No 330 of 2011 | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Appeal dismissed by the Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No 61 of 2012. |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that the defendant breached the contract by supplying defective goods.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Defective Goods
- Failure to supply goods of agreed quality
- Remoteness of Damage
- Outcome: The court held that some of the advertising expenses were within the reasonable contemplation of the parties and therefore recoverable.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Reasonable contemplation of parties
- Ordinary course of things
- Special circumstances
- Related Cases:
- [1854] 9 Exch 341
- [1949] 2 KB 528
- [2011] 1 SLR 150
- Proof of Loss
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove its loss in relation to certain expenses.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Sufficiency of evidence
- Burden of proof
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Manufacturing
- Beverage
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ruxley Electronics & Construction Ltd v Forsyth | N/A | Yes | [1996] AC 344 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that once the court awards a monetary substitute for the lost services, it no longer concerns itself with whether the plaintiff would actually use the money to purchase those services. |
| Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co | N/A | Yes | (1880) 5 App Cas 25 | N/A | Cited for the fundamental principle of compensation, namely, that the measure of damages should be “that sum of money which will put the party who has been injured, or who has suffered, in the same position as he would have been in if he had not sustained the wrong for which he is now getting his compensation”. |
| Anglia Television v Reed | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1972] QB 60 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that recovery of pre-contractual expenditure is permissible if it was within the parties’ contemplation that such expenditure would probably be wasted upon breach. |
| C.C.C. Films (London) v Impact Quadrant Films | N/A | Yes | [1985] QB 16 | England and Wales | Cited as consistent with the proposition that the burden of proof is generally placed on the defendant to show that the bargain was bad and that the plaintiff would not have recouped its expenditure. |
| Robertson Quay Investment Pte Ltd v Steen Consultants Pte Ltd and another | N/A | No | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 623 | Singapore | Cited regarding the need for further scrutiny of expenses that are inflated, unusual or special. |
| Thode Gerd Walter v Mintwell Industry Pte Ltd and others | High Court | Yes | [2010] SGHC 33 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there is no general requirement at law that the makers of any quotations or invoices adduced must explain them in court, as long as the plaintiff provided cogent evidence of its loss. |
| MFM Restaurants Pte Ltd and another v Fish & Co Restaurants Pte Ltd and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 1 SLR 150 | Singapore | Cited for reaffirming the two limbs set out in Hadley v Baxendale as continuing to govern the doctrine of remoteness of damage in contract law. |
| Hadley v Baxendale | N/A | Yes | (1854) 9 Exch 341 | England and Wales | Cited as governing the doctrine of remoteness of damage in contract law. |
| Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v Newman Industries Ld | N/A | Yes | [1949] 2 KB 528 | England and Wales | Cited for the explanation of knowledge 'possessed' in the context of remoteness of damage. |
| Transfield Shipping Inc v Mercator Shipping Inc | N/A | No | [2009] 1 AC 61 | England and Wales | Cited as the Court of Appeal declined to follow Lord Hoffmann’s approach based on assumption of responsibility. |
| Latham Scott v Credit Suisse First Boston | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR(R) 30 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that the Hadley v Baxendale principle should not be used to extend the potential amount of damages to circumstances in which the party at fault had no legal obligations. |
| Commonwealth of Australia v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd | N/A | No | (1991) ALJR 123 | Australia | Cited as an example where any prospect of the plaintiff recouping its expenditure was entirely dependent on whether or not it secured a renewal of its contract with the defendant. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Sports drink
- Defective goods
- Breach of contract
- Reliance loss
- Advertising expenses
- Remoteness of damage
- Reasonable contemplation
- Burden of proof
15.2 Keywords
- breach of contract
- damages
- sports drink
- advertising expenses
- defective goods
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Breach of Contract | 90 |
| Measure of Damages | 80 |
| Reliance Loss | 75 |
| Contract Law | 70 |
| Commercial Disputes | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Contract Dispute
- Damages Assessment