Anuva Technologies v Advanced Sierra Electrotech: Breach of Contract & Unjust Enrichment

In 2019, the High Court of Singapore heard two suits together: Suit No 625 of 2018 and Suit No 910 of 2018. Anuva Technologies Pte Ltd sued Advanced Sierra Electrotech Pte Ltd for US$288,295.97, claiming unpaid invoices for electronic components. Adset counterclaimed for $107,502.07 and $225,754.34, alleging unpaid profits from a joint project. In Suit No 910 of 2018, ADTEC Electronic Instruments Pte Ltd and Ravichandra Sundaram sued Anuva Technologies Pte Ltd for breach of contract and unjust enrichment related to the CTRM project. Anuva counterclaimed for US$125,000, US$16,666.67, US$70,160.64 and US$8,280. The court ruled in favor of Anuva on the claim, and in favor of Adset and Mr. Ravi on the counterclaim in Suit 625. In Suit 910, the court ruled in favor of Mr. Ravi on one claim, and in favor of Anuva on the counterclaims.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff in part and Judgment for Defendant in part

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Anuva Technologies sued Advanced Sierra Electrotech for unpaid invoices. The court addressed breach of contract, limitation, illegality, and unjust enrichment, ruling in favor of Anuva on most claims.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Anuva Technologies Pte LtdPlaintiff, Defendant in CounterclaimCorporationJudgment for Plaintiff in partPartial
Advanced Sierra Electrotech Pte LtdDefendant, Plaintiff in CounterclaimCorporationJudgment for Defendant in partPartial
Ravichandra SundaramPlaintiff in Counterclaim, PlaintiffIndividualCounterclaim Allowed in PartPartial
ADTEC Electronic Instruments Pte LtdPlaintiffCorporationClaim DismissedDismissed

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Vincent HoongJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Pereira Kenneth JeraldAldgate Chambers LLC
Lai Yan Ting FrancineAldgate Chambers LLC
Mohamed Nawaz KamilProvidence Law Asia LLC
Wong Joon WeeProvidence Law Asia LLC

4. Facts

  1. Anuva was the primary supplier of electronic components to Adset.
  2. Anuva claimed US$288,295.97 for 71 unpaid invoices issued between 2010 and 2014.
  3. Adset claimed a verbal agreement existed where Anuva would not charge for R&D components.
  4. Adset claimed invoices before June 20, 2012, were time-barred.
  5. Adset and Mr. Ravi counterclaimed for unpaid profits from a project with BEL Companies.
  6. CTRM mistakenly paid US$83,250 to Anuva instead of Adtec.
  7. Anuva withheld an excess of US$28,642.28 from Adtec.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Anuva Technologies Pte Ltd v Advanced Sierra Electrotech Pte Ltd and another suit, Suit Nos 625 of 2018 and 910 of 2018, [2019] SGHC 244

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Invoices issued by Anuva to Adset
Anuva supplied electronic products to the BEL companies between 2012 and 2014
Invoices issued by Anuva to Adset
Adtec invoiced CTRM for US$83,250
Suit No 625 of 2018 commenced
Counterclaim in S 625/2018 pleaded
Statement of Claim amended in S 910/2018
Trial began
Judgment reserved
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found that Adset breached its contract with Anuva by failing to pay for delivered goods.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Limitation
    • Outcome: The court held that claims were not time-barred due to acknowledgments of debt.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [1963] 2 QB 418
      • [2003] 2 SLR(R) 205
      • [2014] 2 SLR 318
      • [2019] 4 SLR 692
      • [2007] 4 SLR(R) 565
      • [2007] 3 SLR(R) 195
  3. Illegality
    • Outcome: The court found that the purported arrangement to evade or reduce payment of customs duties did not render the contracts unenforceable.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2014] 3 SLR 609
      • [2013] 3 SLR 666
      • [2018] 2 SLR 1145
      • [1990] 1 QB 1
      • [1929] 1 KB 470
      • [2016] 4 SLR 1
  4. Unjust Enrichment
    • Outcome: The court declined to order restitution of the sum of US$83,250 sought by Adtec.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2013] 3 SLR 801
  5. Breach of Agency Duties
    • Outcome: The court found that the Adtec has not established that its relationship with Anuva was one of agency.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2016] 3 SLR 1308

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages
  2. Declaration of Constructive Trust

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Unjust Enrichment

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Electronics
  • Avionics

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Good v ParryQueen's BenchYes[1963] 2 QB 418England and WalesCited for the principle that the debt was not quantified in figures or liquidated in the sense that it is capable of ascertainment by calculation or extrinsic evidence without further agreement of the parties.
Chuan & Company Pte Ltd v Ong Soon HuatHigh CourtYes[2003] 2 SLR(R) 205SingaporeCited for the principle that the debt was not quantified in figures or liquidated in the sense that it is capable of ascertainment by calculation or extrinsic evidence without further agreement of the parties.
Fairview Developments Pte Ltd v Ong & Ong Pte Ltd and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2014] 2 SLR 318SingaporeCited for the principle that an acknowledgement of the existence of a debt may suffice even if the exact amount owing was not acknowledged, so long as reference could be made to extrinsic evidence to ascertain the said amount.
Super Group Ltd v Mysore Nagaraja KartikCourt of AppealYes[2019] 4 SLR 692SingaporeCited for the principle that an acknowledgment need not be direct or explicit, as long as it is “sufficiently clear”
Murakami Takako (executrix of the estate of Takashi Murakami Suroso, deceased) v Wiryadi Louise Maria and othersHigh CourtYes[2007] 4 SLR(R) 565SingaporeCited for the principle that an acknowledgment need not be direct or explicit, as long as it is “sufficiently clear”
Kim Eng Securities Pte Ltd v Tan Suan KheeHigh CourtYes[2007] 3 SLR(R) 195SingaporeCited for the principle that an email could satisfy the signed writing requirement under s 27(1) Limitation Act.
Ting Siew May v Boon Lay Choo and anotherHigh CourtYes[2014] 3 SLR 609SingaporeCited for the principle that the contracts it seeks to enforce through its claim were for the sale and purchase of goods and were not entered into with the object of committing an illegal or unlawful act, or for any unlawful purpose.
ANC Holdings Pte Ltd v Bina Puri Holdings BhdHigh CourtYes[2013] 3 SLR 666SingaporeCited for the underlying public policy requirement that the court is entitled to take cognisance of illegality which emerges from the evidence even if this has not been specifically pleaded as a defence.
Teng-Wen Chung v EFG Bank AG, Singapore BranchCourt of AppealYes[2018] 2 SLR 1145SingaporeCited for the principles in Euro-Diam were considered.
Euro-Diam Ltd v BathurstQueen's BenchYes[1990] 1 QB 1England and WalesCited for the principle that a contract is tainted by illegality where it is not itself illegal, but has a connection with some other illegal transaction which renders it obnoxious.
Foster v Driscoll and othersKing's Bench DivisionYes[1929] 1 KB 470England and WalesCited for the rule that a Singapore court will not enforce a contract or award damages for its breach, if its object or purpose would involve doing an act in a foreign and friendly state which would violate the law of that state.
BCBC Singapore Pte Ltd and another v PT Bayan Resources TBK and anotherHigh CourtYes[2016] 4 SLR 1SingaporeCited for the rule based on Foster v Driscoll was described as a principle of domestic public policy that a Singapore court will not enforce a contract or award damages for its breach, if its object or purpose would involve doing an act in a foreign and friendly state which would violate the law of that state.
Patriot Pte Ltd v Lam Hong Commercial CoCourt of AppealYes[1979–1980] SLR(R) 218SingaporeCited for the principle that if a party to a contract actively engages in an illegal adventure to get goods into a country in breach of the revenue laws of that country, the court will not assist the parties to the adventure by entertaining or settling any dispute between the parties arising out of the contract.
Wee Chiaw Sek Anna v Ng Li-Ann Genevieve (sole executrix of the estate of Ng Hock Seng, deceased) and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2013] 3 SLR 801SingaporeCited for the four elements that must be shown to establish a cause of action in unjust enrichment.
Grains and Industrial Products Trading Pte Ltd v Bank of India and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2016] 3 SLR 1308SingaporeCited for the principle that while the recoverability of interest under s 12 of the Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed) is discretionary, as a general rule, damages should commence from the date of accrual of loss.
Sudha Natrajan v The Bank of East Asia LtdHigh CourtYes[2017] 1 SLR 141SingaporeCited for the principle that the rule in Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 is not an inflexible rule, but rather one premised on fairness.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed)Singapore
Electronic Transactions Act (Cap 88, 2011 Rev Ed)Singapore
Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • R&D invoices
  • Commercial invoices
  • Revenue Sharing Arrangement
  • CTRM Contract
  • BEL Companies
  • Work Package
  • Milestones
  • Electronic components
  • Avionics systems

15.2 Keywords

  • contract
  • breach
  • unjust enrichment
  • limitation
  • illegality
  • invoices
  • electronic components
  • avionics
  • singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Breach of Contract75
Unjust Enrichment70
Contract Law65
Agency Law50
Limitation40
Estoppel30

16. Subjects

  • Contract Dispute
  • Debt Recovery
  • Unjust Enrichment
  • Agency