Sun Qi v Syscon: Sale of Goods Act & Defective Cranes Legal Issue

In Sun Qi (formerly trading as Power King International) and another v Syscon Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore addressed a dispute arising from two agreements for the sale and installation of overhead travelling cranes. Syscon Pte Ltd counterclaimed for rescission of the agreements, alleging breach of the implied condition of satisfactory quality. The court, presided over by Quentin Loh J, found in favor of Syscon, allowing the counterclaim for rescission and ordering the return of $100,800.00 paid to Power King, with Power King obliged to dismantle and remove the cranes from Syscon's factory site.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Defendant

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

High Court case regarding breach of contract and rescission for defective cranes. Syscon successfully counterclaimed for rescission due to the cranes' unsatisfactory quality.

1.7 Decision Date

14 February 2013

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Sun Qi (formerly trading as Power King International)	Plaintiff	Individual	Claim Dismissed	Lost	Khor Wee Siong of Khor Thiam Beng & Partners
Wong Mai Jun, Eugene	Plaintiff	Individual	Claim Dismissed	Lost	Khor Wee Siong of Khor Thiam Beng & Partners
Syscon Pte Ltd	Defendant	Corporation	Counterclaim Allowed	Won	Ram Chandra Ramesh of M/s C Ramesh Tng Kim Choon of M/s C Ramesh

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Quentin Loh	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Khor Wee Siong	Khor Thiam Beng & Partners
Ram Chandra Ramesh	M/s C Ramesh
Tng Kim Choon	M/s C Ramesh

4. Facts

Plaintiffs and defendant entered into two agreements for the sale and installation of overhead travelling cranes.
The defendant alleged the cranes were defective and not of satisfactory quality.
The defendant sought rescission of the agreements and return of payments made.
The plaintiffs claimed the defendant had lost the right of rejection due to the time elapsed.
The court found the cranes were defective due to electrical and mechanical issues.
The court found the defendant had not lost its right of rejection.
The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim and allowed the defendant's counterclaim for rescission.

5. Formal Citations

Sun Qi (formerly trading as Power King International) and another v Syscon Pte Ltd, Suit No 775 of 2009, [2013] SGHC 38

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2008-04-09	Quote given for one 30-ton overhead travelling crane.
2008-04-15	Trial order placed for one 30-ton overhead travelling crane.
2008-08-05	Load-test for the first crane conducted; MOM certificate issued.
2008-08-06	First crane fully delivered, installed, and commissioned.
2008-09-09	First agreement made for three 30-ton overhead travelling cranes.
2008-09-22	Second agreement made for two 20-ton overhead travelling cranes.
2008-10-18	First crane breakdown.
2008-12-13	One 30-ton crane delivered and installed.
2008-12-16	One 30-ton crane delivered and installed.
2008-12-23	MOM certificates issued for two 30-ton cranes.
2009-01-13	One 30-ton crane delivered and installed.
2009-01-14	MOM certificate issued for one 30-ton crane.
2009-01-19	Syscon paid Power King $50,000.00.
2009-02-02	Problems with the cranes allegedly began.
2009-02-27	Syscon sent a service request to Power King.
2009-03-14	Mr. Wong wrote a letter regarding complaints about the cranes.
2009-03-18	Breakdown of crane at Line 9.
2009-03-19	Syscon sent a service request to Power King.
2009-03-23	Meeting held at Syscon's premises to discuss crane problems.
2009-03-24	Minutes of meeting faxed out.
2009-03-26	Syscon sent a service request to Power King.
2009-04-04	Breakage of hook-pulley and steel wire at Line 9.
2009-04-06	Syscon sent a service request to Power King.
2009-04-13	Breakdown of crane hoist at Line 11.
2009-04-13	Syscon sent a service request to Power King.
2009-04-23	Mr. Wong reminded Syscon to conduct commissioning and load-test.
2009-04-28	Ms. Ang requested structural crane detail drawings.
2009-04-30	Syscon sent a service request to Power King.
2009-05-18	Long and cross travel brake coil jammed at Line 9.
2009-05-19	Syscon sent a service request to Power King.
2009-05-25	Power King sent a formal letter of demand to Syscon.
2009-05-29	Syscon instructed Christopher Bridges Law Practice.
2009-05-29	Breakdown of long travel system at Line 8.
2009-06-06	Long travel motors-cum-gear box out of order at Lines 8, 10, 11.
2009-06-23	Genesis Law wrote to Christopher Bridges asking whether the latter was authorised to accept service of process on behalf of Syscon.
2009-07-06	Syscon gave notice to Power King that it was rejecting all the cranes.
2009-07-14	Khor Thiam Beng & Partners requested a joint inspection.
2009-08-05	Joint inspection carried out.
2009-09-09	Suit filed.
2011-08-24	Hearing.
2011-08-25	Hearing.
2012-03-05	Hearing.
2012-04-09	Plaintiffs’ Closing Reply Submissions.
2012-04-11	Defendant’s closing submissions.
2013-02-15	Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiffs were in breach of contract due to the defective cranes.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Breach of implied condition of satisfactory quality
  - Breach of warranty of fitness for purpose
Right of Rejection
- Outcome: The court found that the defendant had not lost its right of rejection.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Loss of right of rejection due to lapse of reasonable time
  - Intimation of rejection
Rescission
- Outcome: The court allowed the defendant's counterclaim for rescission.
- Category: Substantive
Misrepresentation
- Outcome: The court found that the defendant's claim of misrepresentation failed.
- Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

Outstanding payment for cranes
Commissioning costs
Rescission of agreements
Return of payments made
Damages for misrepresentation
Damages for breach of contract

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract
Breach of implied condition of satisfactory quality
Misrepresentation

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

Construction
Manufacturing

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Eastern Supply Co v Kerr	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1973] SGCA 7	Singapore	Cited to establish that a buyer loses the right to reject goods for breach of conditions once they are deemed to have accepted the goods, but can still claim for damages.
Compact Metal Industries Ltd v PPG Industries (Singapore) Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2006] SGHC 242	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a reasonable time for rejection depends on the type of product and discoverability of the defect, and that conducting trials to resolve issues does not prejudice rejection rights.
Super Continental Pte Ltd v Essential Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2010] SGHC 365	Singapore	Cited for the principle that repeated complaints and attempts to rectify defects are part of a reasonable opportunity to examine goods and do not necessarily indicate acceptance.
Bisset v Wilkinson	Privy Council	Yes	[1927] AC 177	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle that a misrepresentation must be an unambiguous statement of existing fact or law, and that vague statements of opinion do not constitute misrepresentations.
Bestland Development Pte Ltd v Thasin Development Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[1991] SGHC 27	Singapore	Cited for affirming the principle that a misrepresentation must be an unambiguous statement of existing fact or law, and that vague statements of opinion do not constitute misrepresentations.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 40A r 2(1)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Sale of Goods Act (Cap 393, 1999 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Sale of Goods Act (Cap 393, 1999 Rev Ed) s 14(2)	Singapore
Sale of Goods Act (Cap 393, 1999 Rev Ed) s 35(4)	Singapore
Sale of Goods Act (Cap 393, 1999 Rev Ed) s 35(6)	Singapore
Misrepresentation Act (Cap 390, 1994 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Misrepresentation Act (Cap 390, 1994 Rev Ed) s 2	Singapore
Misrepresentation Act (Cap 390, 1994 Rev Ed) s 2(2)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Overhead travelling cranes
Satisfactory quality
Right of rejection
Rescission
Misrepresentation
Warranty
Defective goods
Reasonable time
Intimation of rejection
Rectification

15.2 Keywords

cranes
defective
sale of goods
rescission
rejection
contract
warranty
misrepresentation

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Contract Law	80
Breach of Contract	75
Rescission	70
Sale of Goods	70
Commercial Law	65
Misrepresentation	60
Warranty Law	50
Performance of Contract	40
Mistake	30

16. Subjects

Sale of Goods
Breach of Contract
Commercial Dispute
Construction Law