Pacific Marine v Xin Ming Hua: Defective Marine Propulsion Units & Breach of Contract
In Pacific Marine & Shipbuilding Pte Ltd v Xin Ming Hua Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore addressed a dispute concerning the quality of marine propulsion units supplied by Xin Ming Hua Pte Ltd to Pacific Marine & Shipbuilding Pte Ltd. Pacific Marine claimed the propulsion units were defective, leading to the termination of shipbuilding contracts with their customer. The court, presided over by Quentin Loh J, found in favor of Pacific Marine, holding that Xin Ming Hua breached the implied condition of satisfactory quality under the Sale of Goods Act and the warranty clause of their contract. The court dismissed Xin Ming Hua's counterclaim for wrongful rejection of the propulsion units.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Dispute over defective marine propulsion units. Court found Xin Ming Hua in breach of contract for supplying unsatisfactory units.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pacific Marine & Shipbuilding Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | |
| Xin Ming Hua Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Claim Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Quentin Loh | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Pacific Marine entered into a contract with Xin Ming Hua for the supply of four marine propulsion units.
- The propulsion units were installed on two tugboats, CALVIN I and CLEMENT I.
- During sea trials, the governor linkages of the propulsion units displayed erratic and excessive movements, referred to as the 'jiggling problem'.
- PPK, the customer, refused to take delivery of the vessels due to the jiggling problem and terminated the shipbuilding contracts.
- Pacific Marine rejected the propulsion units and requested replacement under the warranty clause, but Xin Ming Hua refused.
- Pacific Marine sold the hulls of the vessels to PFMR after removing the propulsion units.
- The Swap Test was conducted, where the starboard side Propulsion Unit of the CALVIN I was switched with the starboard side propulsion unit from the BERKAH 38.
5. Formal Citations
- Pacific Marine & Shipbuilding Pte Ltd v Xin Ming Hua Pte Ltd, Suit No 243 of 2012, [2014] SGHC 102
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007 Sale Contract signed | |
| 2009 Sale Contract signed | |
| Sale Contract signed | |
| Centa coupling on CALVIN I experienced overload breakage | |
| Sea trials of CALVIN I; governor linkages observed to display erratic and excessive movements | |
| Sea trials of CLEMENT I; governor linkages observed to display erratic and excessive movements | |
| Governor actuator replaced with a new one, but the jiggling problem persisted | |
| Governor actuator from CALVIN I installed on BERKAH 38; no jiggling observed on BERKAH 38 | |
| CALVIN I upslipped | |
| CALVIN I upslipped | |
| PPK terminated the Shipbuilding Contracts | |
| Fuel injectors removed from CALVIN I for testing; fuel injector pump replaced with a new one, but the jiggling problem persisted | |
| Plaintiff rejected the Propulsion Units and requested replacement under the Warranty Clause | |
| Video recording of jiggling problem | |
| Plaintiff decided to proceed with the Swap Test | |
| Sea trial of CALVIN I after Swap Test; no jiggling observed on the substituted propulsion unit from the BERKAH 38 | |
| Plaintiff informed the Defendant that the Propulsion Units were held at the Defendant’s disposal at the shipyard | |
| Plaintiff commenced action against the Defendant | |
| Plaintiff sold the hulls of CALVIN I and CLEMENT I to PFMR | |
| Defendant took back the Propulsion Units | |
| Hulls delivered to PFMR | |
| Dynamometer tests conducted on the Propulsion Units | |
| Dynamometer tests conducted on the Propulsion Units | |
| Expert conclave to discuss the issues relating to the possible cause of the jiggling problem | |
| Expert conclave to discuss the issues relating to the possible cause of the jiggling problem | |
| Plaintiff abandoned its claim based on s 14(3) of the SOGA | |
| Notes of Evidence | |
| Notes of Evidence | |
| Notes of Evidence | |
| Notes of Evidence | |
| Notes of Evidence | |
| Notes of Evidence | |
| Notes of Evidence | |
| Notes of Evidence | |
| Notes of Evidence | |
| Notes of Evidence | |
| Notes of Evidence | |
| Court allowed the claim with brief reasons | |
| Counsel for the Plaintiff pointed out that a particular finding set out in the brief grounds was not entirely accurate | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that the Defendant breached the implied condition of satisfactory quality under s 14(2) of the SOGA and the Warranty Clause.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to supply goods of satisfactory quality
- Breach of warranty
- Satisfactory Quality of Goods
- Outcome: The court held that the propulsion units were not of satisfactory quality due to the jiggling problem, which rendered the vessels unseaworthy.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Fitness for purpose
- Defective goods
- Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence
- Outcome: The court ruled that the Defendant failed to take all reasonable steps to persuade the makers of certain documents to testify, rendering the documents inadmissible as hearsay evidence.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to secure attendance of witness
- Reasonable steps to procure attendance
8. Remedies Sought
- Recovery of Purchase Price
- Damages for Breach of Contract
- Expenses Incurred
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Breach of Implied Condition of Satisfactory Quality under the Sale of Goods Act
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Contract Disputes
- Shipping Law
11. Industries
- Shipbuilding
- Marine Engineering
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gimpex Ltd v Unity Holding Business Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2013] SGHC 224 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that evidence must be produced to show the steps that were taken to persuade the maker of the documents whose admission is challenged to testify at the trial under s 32(1)(j)(iii) of the EA. |
| Sakthivel Punithavathi v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 983 | Singapore | Cited for the approach to evaluating expert evidence, emphasizing the importance of sifting, weighing, and evaluating the evidence in the context of the factual matrix and objective facts. |
| Pacific Recreation Pte Ltd v S Y Technology Inc | Court of Appeal | No | [2008] SGCA 1 | Singapore | Cited to show that Form 58 applies only to expert witnesses in the Subordinate Courts and it is not mandatory, even though it may be good practice, for proceedings in the Supreme Court. |
| Ferrero SPA v Sarika Connoisseur Café Pte Ltd | High Court | No | [2011] SGHC 176 | Singapore | Cited to show that Form 58 applies only to expert witnesses in the Subordinate Courts and it is not mandatory, even though it may be good practice, for proceedings in the Supreme Court. |
| Bajumi Wahab v Afro-Asia Shipping Company | High Court | Yes | [2001] SGHC 91 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it is the duty of an expert to communicate his change of view on a material matter to all parties without delay. |
| Khoo Bee Keong v Ang Chun Hong | High Court | Yes | [2005] SGHC 128 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it is the duty of an expert to communicate his change of view on a material matter to all parties without delay. |
| Anti-Corrosion Pte Ltd v Berger Paints Singapore Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2012] 1 SLR 427 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that if the Plaintiff can raise a prima facie case that the Propulsion Units were defective, then the evidential burden shifts to the Defendant to show that the Propulsion Units were not defective. |
| Britestone Pte Ltd v Smith & Associates Far East, Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 855 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that if the Plaintiff can raise a prima facie case that the Propulsion Units were defective, then the evidential burden shifts to the Defendant to show that the Propulsion Units were not defective. |
| Ong Seow Pheng v Lotus Development | High Court | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR(R) 113 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court cannot make a finding based on facts which have not been pleaded. |
| Sun Qi v Syscon Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2013] SGHC 38 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a buyer is entitled to reject goods which were not of satisfactory quality, subject to the defence of acceptance by use. |
| Clegg v Olle Andersson | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2003] 1 All ER (Comm) 721 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a buyer is entitled to reject goods which were not of satisfactory quality, subject to the defence of acceptance by use. |
| Compact Metals Industries Ltd v PPG Industries (Singapore) Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2006] SGHC 242 | Singapore | Cited for the standard of satisfactory quality under the Sale of Goods Act. |
| National Foods Ltd v Pars Ram Brothers (Pte) Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 1048 | Singapore | Cited for affirming the standard of satisfactory quality under the Sale of Goods Act. |
| Emjay Enterprises Pte Ltd v Skylift Consolidator (Pte) Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2006] 2 SLR(R) 268 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that if the Defendant had intended to raise this it would have to be specifically and properly pleaded. |
| Lee Hsien Loong v Singapore Democratic Party | High Court | Yes | [2009] 1 SLR(R) 642 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that if the Defendant had intended to raise this it would have to be specifically and properly pleaded. |
| Robertson Quay Investment Pte Ltd v Steen Consultants Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 623 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the losses were well within the reasonable contemplation of the parties at the time of the contract as a natural consequence of the breach. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Sale of Goods Act (Cap 393, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Marine Propulsion Units
- Governor Linkage
- Jiggling Problem
- Shipbuilding Contracts
- Warranty Clause
- Sale of Goods Act
- Propeller Excitation
- Propeller Shaft Resonance
- Swap Test
- Dynamometer Tests
15.2 Keywords
- Marine Propulsion
- Defective Goods
- Breach of Contract
- Shipbuilding
- Warranty
- Sale of Goods Act
- Singapore High Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Breach of Contract | 90 |
| Contract Law | 85 |
| Marine Propulsion Units | 80 |
| Contracts | 80 |
| Shipping Law | 75 |
| Shipbuilding Contracts | 70 |
| Warranty Law | 65 |
| Commercial Law | 60 |
| Damages | 50 |
| Construction Law | 30 |
| Construction | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Contract Law
- Sale of Goods
- Shipping
- Marine Engineering