Shenzhen Kenouxin v Heliyanto: Agency, Contract Breach & Agent's Liabilities
Shenzhen Kenouxin Electronic Co Ltd sued Heliyanto, Express Logic Pte. Ltd., and PT Mega Mandiri Batam in the High Court of Singapore, alleging breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation related to the purchase of electronic chips. The plaintiff claimed that Heliyanto, acting as an agent, failed to deliver goods and supplied fake chips. The court dismissed the claim against Heliyanto, finding that he acted as a representative of the defendant companies and was not personally liable for the contracts. The court found inconsistencies in the plaintiff's evidence and deemed their witness unreliable.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Plaintiff's claim against the first defendant is dismissed with costs to be taxed in a standard basis unless otherwise agreed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Shenzhen Kenouxin sued Heliyanto for breach of contract related to chip purchases. The court dismissed the claim, finding Heliyanto acted as an agent.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shenzhen Kenouxin Electronic Co Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Heliyanto | Defendant | Individual | Judgment for Defendant | Won | |
| Express Logic Pte. Ltd. | Defendant | Corporation | Judgment in Default | Default | |
| PT Mega Mandiri Batam | Defendant | Corporation | No Service | Neutral |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Lai Siu Chiu | Senior Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Plaintiff purchased electronic chips through the first defendant from the second and third defendants.
- Plaintiff claimed the first defendant made fraudulent misrepresentations about the chips.
- Plaintiff alleged the chips supplied were fake and not brand new.
- Plaintiff relied on a settlement agreement signed by the first defendant as evidence of a promise to refund payments.
- First defendant claimed he signed the settlement agreement as a representative of the third defendant, not personally.
- The plaintiff commenced this suit in April 2013.
- The court found inconsistencies in the plaintiff's case and deemed their witness unreliable.
5. Formal Citations
- Shenzhen Kenouxin Electronic Co Ltd v Heliyanto and others, Suit No 441 of 2013, [2016] SGHC 139
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| First defendant set up KLS International Pte Ltd, now known as Kho Industries Pte Ltd. | |
| Second defendant incorporated. | |
| Leau approached Huang to provide the plaintiff with chips. | |
| Plaintiff signed first contract with second defendant. | |
| Plaintiff signed second contract with second defendant. | |
| Plaintiff entered into contract with third defendant. | |
| Goods under the 11 July contract and four other contracts were delivered to the plaintiff. | |
| Huang arrived in Singapore. | |
| Huang met the first defendant at his office. | |
| Plaintiff commenced suit. | |
| Plaintiff obtained judgment in default of appearance against the second defendant. | |
| Trial began. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff had contracted with the second and third defendants, not the first defendant personally, and therefore dismissed the claim against the first defendant.
- Category: Substantive
- Agent's Liability
- Outcome: The court held that the first defendant was acting as an agent for a disclosed principal and was therefore not personally liable for the contracts.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
- Rescission of Contract
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Electronics
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bakery Mart Pte Ltd (in receivership) v Sincere Watch Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2003] 3 SLR(R) 462 | Singapore | Cited by the plaintiff on the interpretation of contracts. |
| Zurich Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd v B-Gold Interior Design & Construction Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR(R) 1029 | Singapore | Cited by the plaintiff on the interpretation of contracts. |
| Tribune Investment Trust Inc v Soosan Trading Co Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR(R) 407 | Singapore | Cited by the plaintiff on the interpretation of contracts. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misrepresentation Act (Cap 390, 1994 Rev Ed), s 2 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed), ss 93 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed), ss 94 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Electronic Chips
- Settlement Agreement
- Agency
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- Purchasing Director
- Remittance Request
- Fake Goods
15.2 Keywords
- agency
- contract
- breach of contract
- electronic components
- chips
- fraudulent misrepresentation
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Agency Law | 85 |
| Contract Law | 75 |
| Breach of Contract | 60 |
| Misrepresentation | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Agency
- Contract Law
- Commercial Dispute