PT Surya Citra Multimedia v Brightpoint Singapore: Breach of Contract & Price Protection for Blackberry Mobile Phones
PT Surya Citra Multimedia ("SCM") sued Brightpoint Singapore Pte Ltd ("BrightPoint") in the High Court of Singapore on 9 November 2018, for breaches of a price protection clause in a sub-distributor agreement concerning Blackberry mobile phones. SCM claimed two instances of price protection related to retail price reductions. BrightPoint counterclaimed for SCM's failure to pick up ordered Blackberry phones. The court dismissed SCM's claims and partially allowed BrightPoint's counterclaim, awarding US$477,895 for SCM's failure to pick up Blackberry 9900 units.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed; Defendant's counterclaim partially allowed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
PT Surya Citra Multimedia sued Brightpoint for breach of contract regarding price protection for Blackberry phones. Brightpoint counterclaimed for failure to pick up ordered phones. Claim dismissed.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PT Surya Citra Multimedia | Plaintiff | Corporation | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Brightpoint Singapore Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Counterclaim Allowed in Part | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| S Selvam | Ramdas & Wong |
| Jimmy Yim | Drew & Napier LLC |
4. Facts
- SCM and BrightPoint entered into a Sub-Distributor Agreement on 7 November 2012.
- The agreement involved SCM purchasing Blackberry products from BrightPoint for distribution in Indonesia.
- SCM claimed for price protection related to retail price reductions of Blackberry mobile phones.
- BrightPoint counterclaimed that SCM failed to pick up certain Blackberry mobile phones as per purchase orders.
- The May Price Protection concerned Blackberry 9220, 9320, 9790 and 9900 models.
- The November Price Protection concerned Blackberry Q5 and Q10 models.
- SCM refused to pick up 15,680 units of Blackberry 9720 and 4200 units of Blackberry 9900.
5. Formal Citations
- PT Surya Citra Multimedia v Brightpoint Singapore Pte Ltd, Suit No 416 of 2015, [2018] SGHC 245
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Sub-Distributor Agreement signed between BrightPoint and SCM. | |
| SCM picked up units scheduled for weeks 14 to 17 via ex-works shipment. | |
| BrightPoint sent first email announcement on the May Price Protection. | |
| BrightPoint sent second email announcement on the May Price Protection. | |
| SCM attempted to cancel 8670 units of Blackberry Q10. | |
| BrightPoint agreed to cancel 11,600 units of Blackberry Q10 and 8320 units of Blackberry Q5. | |
| BrightPoint emailed Blackberry to request approval of outstanding credit notes owed to SCM. | |
| BrightPoint informed SCM that US$300,000 for price protection of Blackberry Bold models would be paid. | |
| BrightPoint reminded SCM to pick up remaining units of Blackberry Q10. | |
| SCM sent revised pick-up plan to BrightPoint. | |
| SCM declared it would withhold pick-ups for Blackberry Q5 and Blackberry Q10. | |
| BrightPoint sent email announcement for the November Price Protection. | |
| BrightPoint sent second email announcement on the November Price Protection. | |
| Mastroianni emailed BrightPoint stating Blackberry supported payment of US$23,500 to SCM. | |
| Meeting between SCM, BrightPoint and Blackberry regarding price protection. | |
| Meeting between SCM and Wong of BrightPoint. | |
| Sokhal emailed SCM stating SCM did not pick the committed stocks. | |
| Suit No 416 of 2015 filed in the High Court of Singapore. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Judgment delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that BrightPoint breached the Sub-Distributor Agreement by refusing to pick up the 4200 units of Blackberry 9900.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to fulfill pick-up commitments
- Failure to provide price protection
- Price Protection Clause
- Outcome: The court found that SCM was not entitled to the May and November Price Protections.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Calculation of price protection amount
- Fulfillment of conditions for price protection
- Time of the Essence
- Outcome: The court found that time of delivery was not of the essence for Blackberry 9720 and Blackberry 9900.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Delivery dates in purchase orders
- Obligation to pick up goods after delivery dates
- Mitigation of Damages
- Outcome: The court found that BrightPoint did not act unreasonably in rejecting SCM's offer.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Reasonableness of rejecting post-breach offer
- Duty to mitigate loss
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Telecommunications
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (Publ), Singapore Branch v Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) Pte Ltd and another and another suit | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 788 | Singapore | Cited for the principle of apparent authority. |
| Himatsing & Co v Joitaram P R | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [1968-1970] SLR(R) 766 | Singapore | Cited regarding time of delivery being of the essence in a sale of goods contract. |
| LED Linear (Asia) Pte Ltd v Krislite Pte Ltd | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2017] SGHC 150 | Singapore | Cited regarding time of delivery being of the essence in a sale of goods contract. |
| Bunge Corporation, New York v Tradax Export SA, Panama | House of Lords | Yes | [1981] 1 WLR 711 | England | Cited regarding time of delivery being of the essence in a sale of goods contract. |
| Hartley v Hymans | King's Bench Division | Yes | [1920] 3 KB 475 | England | Cited regarding time of delivery being of the essence in a sale of goods contract. |
| Tian Teck Construction Pte Ltd v Exklusiv Auto Pte Ltd | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR(R) 948 | Singapore | Cited regarding time not being of the essence unless expressly stipulated or indicated by circumstances. |
| United Scientific Holdings Ltd v Burnley Borough Council | House of Lords | Yes | [1978] AC 904 | England | Cited regarding time not being of the essence unless expressly stipulated or indicated by circumstances. |
| Teo Teo Lee v Ong Swee Lan and others | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2002] 2 SLR(R) 760 | Singapore | Followed Tian Teck Construction regarding time not being of the essence unless expressly stipulated or indicated by circumstances. |
| Man Financial (S) Pte Ltd (formerly known as E D & F Man International (S) Pte Ltd) v Wong Bark Chuan David | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR(R) 663 | Singapore | Cited for factors in ascertaining whether a contractual term is a condition. |
| Addictive Circuits (S) Pte Ltd v Wearnes Automation Pte Ltd | Singapore High Court | Yes | [1991] 2 SLR(R) 246 | Singapore | Cited regarding time of delivery being the essence of the contract. |
| Hongkong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1962] 2 QB 26 | England | Cited regarding stipulations of time not being regarded as conditions. |
| Samarenko v Dawn Hill House Ltd | Chancery Division | Yes | [2013] Ch 36 | England | Echoed sentiments of Lord Wilberforce and Lord Lowry in Bunge regarding time limits as conditions. |
| Multi-Pak Singapore Pte Ltd (in receivership) v Intraco Ltd and others | Singapore High Court | Yes | [1992] 2 SLR(R) 382 | Singapore | Cited regarding requirement to set out material facts in pleadings. |
| The “Asia Star” | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 2 SLR 1154 | Singapore | Cited regarding the mitigation principle and reasonableness inquiry. |
| Payzu Ltd v Saunders | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1919] 2 KB 581 | England | Cited regarding the rejection of a post-breach offer and the duty to mitigate. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Sale of Goods Act (Cap 393, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Price Protection
- Sub-Distributor Agreement
- Purchase Order
- Invoiced Sales
- Pick-Up Commitment
- New Product Introduction
- Mitigation of Damages
- Ex-Works
- Compass Tool
- Accrual Fund
15.2 Keywords
- Blackberry
- Price Protection
- Sub-Distributor Agreement
- Breach of Contract
- Singapore
- Mobile Phones
- Commercial Dispute
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Breach of Contract | 95 |
| Contract Law | 90 |
| Sale of Goods | 90 |
| Commercial Law | 85 |
| Damages | 70 |
| Commercial Litigation | 70 |
| Civil Procedure | 60 |
| Performance of Contract | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Contract Law
- Commercial Law
- Sale of Goods
- Price Protection
- Breach of Contract