G-Fuel Pte Ltd v. Gulf Petrochem Pte Ltd: Dispute over Marine Fuel Oil Contract Formation

G-Fuel Pte Ltd sued Gulf Petrochem Pte Ltd in the High Court of Singapore to recover US$2,002,404.78 for marine fuel oil supplied on 8 February 2014. G-Fuel claimed Gulf agreed to a 'sleeving arrangement' to purchase the oil, which Gulf denied. The court, presided over by Senior Judge Tan Lee Meng, found that a contract existed based on the conduct of the parties and the testimony of key witnesses, and ruled in favor of G-Fuel.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

G-Fuel sued Gulf Petrochem for failing to pay for marine fuel oil. The court found a contract existed and ruled in favor of G-Fuel.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Gulf Petrochem Pte LtdDefendantCorporationClaim DismissedLost
G-Fuel Pte LtdPlaintiffCorporationJudgment for PlaintiffWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Tan Lee MengSenior JudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Thomas TanHaridass Ho & Partners
Loh Chiu KuanHaridass Ho & Partners
Kelly TohOon & Bazul LLP
Kelly Yap Ming KwangOon & Bazul LLP

4. Facts

  1. G-Fuel and Gulf had a sleeving arrangement where Gulf acted as a credit sleeve provider for NER.
  2. G-Fuel delivered 2,989.467 MT of MFO to NER's barge, The Joaquim, on 8 February 2014.
  3. G-Fuel invoiced Gulf for US$2,002,404.78 for the MFO.
  4. Gulf initially confirmed the deal but later denied purchasing the MFO.
  5. Gulf claimed a deal recap was required for a binding contract, which was not sent.
  6. Gulf claimed it did not nominate the barge, so G-Fuel assumed the risk.
  7. Gulf communicated to NER that it had handed over the Joaquim cargo to NER, contradicting its claim that it did not purchase the cargo from G-Fuel.

5. Formal Citations

  1. G-Fuel Pte Ltd v Gulf Petrochem Pte Ltd, Suit No 588 of 2014, [2016] SGHC 62

6. Timeline

DateEvent
New Energy Resources Pte Ltd expressed interest in purchasing MFO from G-Fuel.
First contract under sleeving arrangement: MFO delivered.
Second contract under sleeving arrangement: MFO delivered.
G-Fuel and Gulf allegedly made a contract for the Joaquim cargo.
G-Fuel delivered the Joaquim cargo.
G-Fuel issued a tax invoice to Gulf for the Joaquim cargo.
Gulf denied purchasing the MFO.
Gulf informed G-Fuel that it was treating the transaction as cancelled.
Trial began.
Trial concluded.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Formation of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found that a contract was formed between G-Fuel and Gulf Petrochem.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Offer
      • Acceptance
      • Intention to create legal relations
  2. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found that Gulf Petrochem breached the contract by failing to pay for the MFO.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to pay
      • Repudiation

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages
  2. Interest

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Petrochemical
  • Shipping
  • Bunkering

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
TTMI Sarl v Statoil ASAEnglish High CourtYes[2011] EWHC 1150 (Comm); [2011] 2 Lloyd's Rep 220England and WalesCited for the principle that agreements can be formed before a formal recap is sent.
Tribune Investment Trust Inc v Soosan Trading Co LtdCourt of AppealYes[2000] 2 SLR(R) 407SingaporeCited for the principle that the existence of a contract can be inferred from the correspondence and conduct of the parties.
Sembcorp Marine Ltd v PPL Holdings Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2013] 4 SLR 193SingaporeCited regarding the construction of contract terms and the introduction of new terms.
Midlink Development Pte Ltd v The Stansfield Group Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2004] 4 SLR(R) 258SingaporeCited for the principle that subsequent conduct can be relevant in determining whether a contract was concluded.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Marine Fuel Oil
  • Sleeving Arrangement
  • Deal Recap
  • Barge Nomination
  • MT
  • MFO
  • Bunker Delivery Notes

15.2 Keywords

  • contract
  • marine fuel oil
  • sleeving arrangement
  • breach of contract
  • bunkering
  • petrochemicals

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Formation of contract95
Contractual terms95
Contract Law90
Breach of Contract90
Offer and Acceptance70
Interpretation of contractual terms60
Interpretation of Contracts60
Estoppel40
Performance of Contract40
Intention of Parties40
Agency Law30
Terms30
Variation of Contract30
Equity30
Cerebral Palsy30
Repudiation30
Estoppel by Convention30
Contractual Remedies30
Incorporation of Terms30
Breach30
Breach of condition30
Variation30
Formation30
Contractual Variation30
Contractual estoppel30
Implied contract30
Construction of undertaking30
Implied contracts30
Caregiver Stress20
Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act20
Ostensible Authority20
Actual Authority20
Law of Pleadings20
Sham Transaction20
Economic Duress20
Entire Agreement Clause20
Frustration of Contract20
Unfair Contract Terms Act20
Requirements for waiver by election20
Communication of choice to affirm contract in clear and unequivocal terms20
Novation20
Privity of contract20
Sufficiency of consideration20
Estoppel in defiance of statute20
Bars to rescission20
Inducement20
Ground for termination of contract20
Effect of counterclaim20
Separability Doctrine20
International Commercial Transactions20
Sham Contract20
Best Efforts Clause10
Licensing Regime10
Postal Rule10
Indian Contract Act10
Design and build contract10
Contracts of indemnity10
Brokerage Agreement10

16. Subjects

  • Contract Law
  • Sale of Goods
  • Commercial Dispute