Koh Wee Meng v Trans Eurokars: Breach of Contract & Defective Rolls-Royce Phantom

Dr. Koh Wee Meng sued Trans Eurokars Pte Ltd in the High Court of Singapore, alleging breach of contract due to a defect in his Rolls-Royce Phantom. Koh claimed the car exhibited excessive noise and vibration during three-point turns, rendering it not of satisfactory quality. Trans Eurokars denied the defect, arguing the noise and vibration were normal for the model. The court, presided over by Judith Prakash J, dismissed Koh's claim, finding that the car was not defective and that the noise and vibration were consistent with the performance of other similar vehicles.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Dr. Koh sued Trans Eurokars for breach of contract, alleging his Rolls-Royce Phantom was defective. The court dismissed the claim, finding no defect.

1.7 Decision Date

26 May 2014

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Koh Wee Meng	Plaintiff	Individual	Claim Dismissed	Lost	Davinder Singh, Jaikanth Shankar, Lim Chingwen, Samantha Tan
Trans Eurokars Pte Ltd	Defendant	Corporation	Judgment for Defendant	Won	Tan Chee Meng, Josephine Choo, Quek Kian Teck

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Judith Prakash	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Davinder Singh	Drew & Napier LLC
Jaikanth Shankar	Drew & Napier LLC
Lim Chingwen	Drew & Napier LLC
Samantha Tan	Drew & Napier LLC
Tan Chee Meng	WongPartnership LLP
Josephine Choo	WongPartnership LLP
Quek Kian Teck	WongPartnership LLP

4. Facts

Koh Wee Meng purchased a Rolls-Royce Phantom from Trans Eurokars for $1,407,150.
Upon delivery, Koh Wee Meng experienced a loud moaning noise and vibration when making three-point turns.
Koh Wee Meng complained to Trans Eurokars about the noise and vibration.
Trans Eurokars attempted to rectify the problem through a series of inspections and part replacements.
Koh Wee Meng sought an independent assessment of the problem.
Experts provided conflicting opinions on whether the noise and vibration constituted a defect.
Trans Eurokars offered to buy back the car for $1,055,000 or trade it in for a new car at a discounted price.

5. Formal Citations

Koh Wee Meng v Trans Eurokars Pte Ltd, Suit No 873 of 2011, [2014] SGHC 104

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2008-08-08	Vehicle Sales Agreement signed
2008-12-23	Rolls-Royce Phantom delivered to Koh Wee Meng
2008-12-25	Koh Wee Meng experienced noise and vibration
2008-12-26	Koh Wee Meng complained to Trans Eurokars
2009-04-01	Koh Wee Meng engaged Mr. Denis Ong, solicitor
2009-04-30	Meeting between Koh Wee Meng, Mr. Ong, and Trans Eurokars representatives
2009-05-13	George Rowlands inspected the Rolls-Royce
2009-05-26	Rolls-Royce left at Trans Eurokars for rectification works
2009-05-30	Koh Wee Meng complained that the problem persisted
2009-06-13	New parts fitted to the car and re-alignment check done
2009-06-25	Mr. Ong reported that the noise and vibration persisted
2009-06-29	Test drive conducted by Mr. Ng, Mr. Wong and Mr. Rowlands
2009-07-20	Mr. Wong arranged for further testing of the power steering noise
2009-07-28	Further wheel alignment check and power steering pump replacement
2009-08-03	Trans Eurokars informed that Koh Wee Meng was seeking an independent assessment
2009-09-03	Test drive with technicians from Germany and the UK
2009-09-04	Test drive with technicians from Germany and the UK
2009-09-18	Entire front suspension of the Rolls-Royce replaced
2009-09-19	Koh Wee Meng collected the Rolls-Royce
2009-10-14	Meeting between Koh Wee Meng, Mr. Ong, Mr. Rowlands, Mr. Wong and Ms. Mei Ling
2009-10-27	Trans Eurokars proposed two options to Koh Wee Meng
2009-11-04	Koh Wee Meng rejected both options
2011-11-29	Proceedings started by Koh Wee Meng
2012-02-28	Inspection carried out to measure noise and vibration
2012-02-29	Inspection carried out to measure noise and vibration
2012-06-21	Inspection by Mr. David John Bellamy
2012-06-22	Inspection by Mr. David John Bellamy
2012-08-24	Mr. Robert Johann Matawa issued report
2014-05-27	Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found no breach of contract, holding that the Rolls-Royce was not defective.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Failure to provide goods of satisfactory quality
Satisfactory Quality of Goods
- Outcome: The court held that the Rolls-Royce was of satisfactory quality, considering the description of the goods, the price, and all other relevant circumstances.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Whether goods meet the standard a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory
  - Whether goods are free from minor defects

8. Remedies Sought

Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

Automotive

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Compact Metal Industries Ltd v PPG Industries (Singapore) Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2006] SGHC 242	Singapore	Cited for the principles regarding the standard of satisfactory quality under the Sale of Goods Act.
Rogers v Parish (Scarborough) Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1987] 1 QB 933	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the purpose for which goods are bought includes the degree of comfort, ease of handling, reliability, and pride in appearance appropriate for the market at which the vehicle is aimed.
Bernstein v Pamson Motors (Golders Green) Ltd	Unknown	Yes	[1987] 2 All ER 220	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that a buyer of a new Rolls-Royce Corniche would not tolerate the slightest blemish, while the purchaser of a humbler car might be less fastidious.
S Pathmanathan v Amaravathi & Ors	Unknown	Yes	[1979] 1 MLJ 38	Malaysia	Cited for the definition of acquiescence.
National Foods Ltd v Pars Ram Brothers (Pte) Ltd	Unknown	Yes	[2007] 2 SLR(R) 1048	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a breach of section 14(2) of the Sale of Goods Act would usually mean a breach of section 14(3) where the purpose for which the goods are normally supplied coincides with the particular purpose for which they are purchased.
Bence Graphics Ltd v Fasson Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1998] 1 QB 87	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the rule in Hadley v Baxendale is the starting point for the assessment of damages and that the prima facie rule set out in section 53(3) of the Sale of Goods Act should not be applied if it would give the buyer more than his true loss.
Jackson v Chrysler Acceptances Ltd	Unknown	Yes	[1978] RTR 474	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that in assessing the value of a defective car sold in a consumer sale, it must be asked what the market value of the defective car would be if buyers and sellers had known of the defects.
Hadley v Baxendale	Court of Exchequer	Yes	(1854) 9 Ex 341	England and Wales	Cited for the rule that the measure of damages is the estimated loss directly and naturally resulting, in the ordinary course of events, from the breach of warranty.
Bulkhaul Ltd v Rhodia Organique Fine Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2008] EWCA Civ 1452	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that a court can find that a market exists not just by identifying a willing buyer at a specified price but also by inferring from any sufficient evidence relevant to the issue.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Sale of Goods Act	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Rolls-Royce Phantom
Three-point turn
Noise vibration harshness
Parking Phenomenon
Satisfactory quality
Vehicle Sales Agreement
BI Index
Stick-slip effect

15.2 Keywords

Rolls-Royce
Phantom
Breach of Contract
Defect
Singapore
Car
Automobile
Noise
Vibration

16. Subjects

Contract Dispute
Consumer Law
Motor Vehicle Law

17. Areas of Law

Contract Law
Sale of Goods
Commercial Law