Alacran Design v Broadley Construction: Misrepresentation & Mistake in Construction Contract
Alacran Design Pte Ltd sued Broadley Construction Pte Ltd in the High Court of Singapore on July 10, 2017, claiming $423,407.34 for equipment supplied for a construction project. The central legal issue was whether a letter of undertaking absolved Broadley from liability. The court, presided over by Audrey Lim JC, found that Broadley had made a fraudulent misrepresentation, rendering the undertaking voidable and Broadley liable for the outstanding sum. The claim was a breach of contract claim.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Alacran Design sues Broadley Construction for $423,407.34. The court found fraudulent misrepresentation, making Broadley liable for the debt.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Broadley Construction Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Alacran Design Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Audrey Lim | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Alacran supplied equipment to Broadley for a residential development project.
- Broadley was a sub-contractor for Singbuild on the project.
- Broadley owed Alacran $423,407.34 for equipment supplied.
- Broadley could not pay Alacran due to non-payment from Singbuild.
- A letter of undertaking was signed to authorize Singbuild to pay Alacran directly.
- The undertaking contained a clause absolving Broadley from liability.
- Singbuild never paid Alacran the outstanding sum.
5. Formal Citations
- Alacran Design Pte Ltd v Broadley Construction Pte Ltd, Suit No 520 of 2016, [2017] SGHC 162
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Contract signed | |
| First Meeting | |
| Cheques post-dated to September 2015 issued | |
| Alacran informed Broadley of intent to encash cheques | |
| Second Meeting | |
| Broadley emailed letter of undertaking to Jacky | |
| Roy cancelled the Cheques | |
| Alacran attempted to encash cheques | |
| Suit No 520 of 2016 filed | |
| Hearing Date | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- Outcome: The court found that Broadley made a fraudulent misrepresentation, entitling Alacran to rescind the Undertaking.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2001] 2 SLR(R) 435
- Unilateral Mistake
- Outcome: The court found that the Undertaking would be void due to Jacky’s unilateral mistake.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2005] 1 SLR(R) 502
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- Unilateral Mistake
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Construction Disputes
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RI International Pte Ltd v Lonstroff AG | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 521 | Singapore | Cited regarding acceptance of terms based on conduct and failure to object. |
| Panatron Pte Ltd and another v Lee Cheow Lee and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR(R) 435 | Singapore | Cited for the elements of the tort of deceit (fraudulent misrepresentation). |
| Wee Chiaw Sek Anna v Ng Li-Ann Genevieve and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 801 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that mere silence does not support an action of deceit. |
| Trans-World (Aluminium) Ltd v Cornelder China (Singapore) | High Court | Yes | [2003] 3 SLR(R) 501 | Singapore | Cited regarding misrepresentation by silence and the wilful suppression of material facts. |
| Singapore Tourism Board v Children’s Media Ltd and others | N/A | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR(R) 981 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that silence or omission may constitute misrepresentation. |
| Hong Leong Singapore Finance Ltd v United Overseas Bank Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 292 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that silence may amount to a representation in a claim in estoppel. |
| EA Apartments Pte Ltd v Tan Bek and others | N/A | Yes | [2017] 3 SLR 559 | Singapore | Cited regarding the principle that passive acquiescence in another's mistaken belief does not constitute misrepresentation. |
| Peekay Intermark Ltd v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Law Rep 511 | N/A | Cited regarding the principle that a misrepresentation is no longer actionable if corrected by clear terms of a document. |
| Jurong Shipyard Pte Ltd v BNP Paribas | High Court | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 33 | Singapore | Cited regarding the principle that a signature on a document estops a party from contradicting its representations, absent vitiating factors. |
| Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 1 SLR(R) 502 | Singapore | Cited for the requirements for a plea of unilateral mistake to succeed. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Letter of Undertaking
- Outstanding Sum
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- Unilateral Mistake
- Sub-contractor
- Main Contractor
15.2 Keywords
- contract
- misrepresentation
- construction
- singapore
- undertaking
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misrepresentation | 90 |
| Fraud and Deceit | 85 |
| Contract Law | 80 |
| Breach of Contract | 75 |
| Mistake | 70 |
16. Subjects
- Contract Law
- Construction Law
- Misrepresentation