Chan Chee Kien v Performance Motors Ltd: Misrepresentation & Sale of Goods Act Dispute
In Chan Chee Kien v Performance Motors Ltd, the High Court of Singapore addressed claims by Mr. Chan Chee Kien against Performance Motors Ltd regarding the purchase of a BMW 550i. Mr. Chan alleged fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of contract, citing defects in the car and false representations by the defendant's sales consultant. The court, presided over by Chan Seng Onn J, dismissed Mr. Chan's claims, finding no evidence of misrepresentation or breach of contract. The court allowed the defendant's counterclaim for storage charges.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Plaintiff's claim is dismissed and the defendant's counterclaim is allowed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Chan Chee Kien sues Performance Motors for misrepresentation and breach of contract over a BMW 550i, alleging defects and false representations. The court dismissed the claim.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chan Chee Kien | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | Por Hock Sing Michael, Er Jing Xian Cindy |
| Performance Motors Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Counterclaim Allowed | Won | Kirpalani Rakesh Gopal, Kwek Yuen Justin, Joanne He Xiuwen |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chan Seng Onn | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Por Hock Sing Michael | Michael Por Law Corporation |
| Er Jing Xian Cindy | Michael Por Law Corporation |
| Kirpalani Rakesh Gopal | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Kwek Yuen Justin | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Joanne He Xiuwen | Drew & Napier LLC |
4. Facts
- Plaintiff purchased a new BMW 550i from the defendant for $378,100.
- The car was the first of its model sold in Singapore.
- Plaintiff made numerous complaints about defects in the car.
- The car was in the workshop for a total of 354 days.
- The defendant addressed several complaints, some classified as defects and some as normal operating characteristics.
- The plaintiff refused to collect the car after being notified that it was ready for collection.
- The court conducted a test drive to assess the car's performance and noise levels.
5. Formal Citations
- Chan Chee Kien v Performance Motors Ltd, Suit No 760 of 2011/L, [2015] SGHC 54
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff purchased a new BMW 550i car from the defendant. | |
| The Car was duly registered and delivered to the plaintiff. | |
| Car in workshop for complaints including hissing sound and suspension noise. | |
| Car brought back to resolve suspension issue. | |
| Car in workshop to address previous complaints and new steering sound complaint. | |
| Car in workshop for squeaking sound, whining sound, suspension sound, pulsating sound, knocking sound, air-con, SMS, and GPS complaints. | |
| Defendant wrote a letter to the plaintiff regarding the suspension noise. | |
| Defendant upgraded the maps in the Car’s GPS free of charge. | |
| Defendant informed the plaintiff of its regret that the plaintiff refused to collect the Car. | |
| Plaintiff arranged for someone to collect the Car. | |
| Plaintiff sent the Car to the workshop for coolant and stability control issues. | |
| Car in workshop for alignment, steering whooping sound, bonnet sound, and HUD complaints. | |
| Test drive conducted due to propeller noise. | |
| Car towed to workshop due to overheating. | |
| Test drive conducted due to metal knocking noise, humming sound, and pulsating sound. | |
| Test drive conducted due to rocky and vibrating sensation and metallic gear sound. | |
| Car in workshop to resolve ticking sound, humming sound and pulsating sound. | |
| Plaintiff collected the Car and complained about the comfort access lock. | |
| Test drive conducted for the judge to experience the car's performance and noise levels. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Misrepresentation
- Outcome: The court found that the defendant's sales consultant did not make any fraudulent misrepresentations to induce the plaintiff to purchase the car.
- Category: Substantive
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found no breach of implied conditions on correspondence with description, quality, and fitness of purpose under the Sale of Goods Act.
- Category: Substantive
- Satisfactory Quality
- Outcome: The court held that a reasonable person would not consider the car to be of unsatisfactory quality, considering the minor nature of the defects, the repairs undertaken, and the overall performance of the car.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- Bernstein v Pamson Motors (Golders Green) Ltd [1987] 2 All ER 220
- Darren Egan v Motor Services (Bath) Ltd [2008] 1 WLR 1589
- Koh Wee Meng v Trans Eurokars Pte Ltd [2014] 3 SLR 663
- Compact Metal Industries Ltd v PPG Industries (Singapore) Ltd [2006] SGHC 242
- Fitness for Purpose
- Outcome: The court found that the car reasonably fit its general purpose as a high-end BMW 5 Series car for transporting passengers in safety and comfort.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Replacement of the car with a new car
- Rescission of the sale and purchase agreement
- Return of the purchase price
- Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Misrepresentation
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Automotive
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rogers v Parish (Scarborough) Ltd | English High Court | Yes | Rogers v Parish (Scarborough) Ltd (1987) All ER 232 | England and Wales | Cited for the phrase relating to transporting passengers with the appropriate degree of comfort, ease of handling and reliability. |
| Bernstein v Pamson Motors (Golders Green) Ltd | English High Court | Yes | Bernstein v Pamson Motors (Golders Green) Ltd [1987] 2 All ER 220 | England and Wales | Cited for factors to consider whether a defect renders a new car 'unmerchantable', including ease of remedy, intractability, time and expense of rectification, and whether the defect can be satisfactorily repaired. |
| Darren Egan v Motor Services (Bath) Ltd | English High Court | Yes | Darren Egan v Motor Services (Bath) Ltd [2008] 1 WLR 1589 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a buyer is unlikely to reject goods simply because of a minor defect; the defect must be of sufficient consequence to make the goods unsatisfactory. |
| Koh Wee Meng v Trans Eurokars Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | Koh Wee Meng v Trans Eurokars Pte Ltd [2014] 3 SLR 663 | Singapore | Cited for the principles regarding 'satisfactory quality', including the objective viewpoint of a reasonable person, the buyer's knowledge, the burden of proof, and the consideration of all relevant factors. |
| Compact Metal Industries Ltd v PPG Industries (Singapore) Ltd | High Court | Yes | Compact Metal Industries Ltd v PPG Industries (Singapore) Ltd [2006] SGHC 242 | Singapore | Cited within Koh Wee Meng v Trans Eurokars Pte Ltd for observations on the standard of satisfactory quality, including the objective viewpoint of a reasonable person. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misrepresentation Act (Cap 390) | Singapore |
| Sale of Goods Act (Cap 393) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- BMW 550i
- Misrepresentation
- Sale of Goods Act
- Defects
- Warranty
- Satisfactory quality
- Fitness for purpose
- Normal operating characteristic
- Troubleshooting
- Remedial work
15.2 Keywords
- BMW
- car defects
- misrepresentation
- sale of goods
- warranty
- Singapore High Court
16. Subjects
- Contract Dispute
- Consumer Law
- Automotive Law
17. Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Sale of Goods Act
- Misrepresentation