Sintalow Hardware v OSK Engineering: Damages Assessment for Breach of Contract

In a suit before the High Court of Singapore, Sintalow Hardware Pte Ltd sued OSK Engineering Pte Ltd for breach of contract concerning the supply of plumbing products for the Marina Bay Sands hotel project. The court, presided over by Senior Judge Lai Siu Chiu, assessed damages following prior rulings on liability by the High Court and Court of Appeal. The court awarded Sintalow $30,988.04 plus $893,021.24 for loss of profits, with interest, determining OSK's failure to take delivery of ordered products resulted in damages to Sintalow.

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

The High Court assessed damages owed by OSK Engineering to Sintalow Hardware for breach of contract related to the supply of plumbing products. The court awarded Sintalow $893,021.24 for loss of profits.

1.7 Decision Date

8 December 2019

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Sintalow Hardware Pte Ltd	Plaintiff	Corporation	Judgment for Plaintiff	Won	Teo Ying Ying Denise of Drew & Napier LLC Wong Wendell of Drew & Napier LLC Ang Xin Yi Felicia of Drew & Napier LLC
OSK Engineering Pte Ltd	Defendant	Corporation	Judgment against Defendant	Lost	Andrew Ang Chee Kwang of PK Wong & Associates LLC Tan Jin Jia Andrea of PK Wong & Associates LLC David Marc Lee of PK Wong & Associates LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Lai Siu Chiu	Senior Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Teo Ying Ying Denise	Drew & Napier LLC
Wong Wendell	Drew & Napier LLC
Ang Xin Yi Felicia	Drew & Napier LLC
Andrew Ang Chee Kwang	PK Wong & Associates LLC
Tan Jin Jia Andrea	PK Wong & Associates LLC
David Marc Lee	PK Wong & Associates LLC

4. Facts

Sintalow agreed to give OSK special discounts on products in consideration of OSK’s commitment to purchase at least S$5m worth of products.
OSK failed to take delivery of products it had ordered from Sintalow.
Sintalow was unable to use the excess valves or supply them to other customers because they had aged and de-colourised over time.
OSK requested that Sintalow allow it to supply the excess products to OSK’s other projects at the prices agreed under the various agreements.
Sintalow sold some of the excess products to other purchasers in its efforts to mitigate its losses.
The Public Utilities Board changed the standards governing the types of pipes and fittings which could be used in construction projects in Singapore.
OSK thwarted Sintalow’s attempt to mitigate its loss by not approving Sintalow’s quotation to Zenith to supply the excess Duker Hubless pipes/fittings and valves for the Hospital project.

5. Formal Citations

Sintalow Hardware Pte LtdvOSK Engineering Pte Ltd, Suit No 662 of 2012, [2019] SGHC 286
Sintalow Hardware Pte Ltd v OSK Engineering Pte Ltd, , [2016] SGHC 104
Sintalow Hardware Pte Ltd v OSK Engineering Pte Ltd, , [2017] 2 SLR 372

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2007-01-01	Supply of products to OSK for installation in the Marina Bay Sands hotel project.
2007-11-21	OSK's letter, termed the 'Master Contract', was issued.
2008-03-03	Sintalow's quotation date for additional Duker Hubless products.
2008-03-07	OSK's letter for the additional Duker Hubless products.
2008-03-10	OSK's letter dated 7 March 2008 sent by facsimile.
2008-05-08	OSK's letter for customised rubber collars.
2008-05-23	OSK's letter for Duker Hubless cross tees.
2008-05-26	OSK requested Sintalow to put its order for cross tees on hold.
2008-06-02	Sintalow responded to OSK saying no cancellation was allowed.
2008-07-01	Sintalow placed an order for 1,000 cross tees with its supplier.
2012-08-08	Date of the writ.
2012-09-01	Chay Ann Ling joined OSK.
2012-09-01	Zenith approached Sintalow for price quotations.
2012-12-01	Zenith approached Sintalow for price quotations.
2012-12-14	Sintalow's quotation to Zenith.
2016-05-25	Judgment awarded to Sintalow.
2017-04-27	Appeal was allowed in part by the Court of Appeal.
2017-10-13	Defence (Amendment No 5) dated.
2017-11-27	Defence (Amendment No 6) dated.
2019-02-14	Chew Kong Huat’s AEIC dated.
2019-02-14	Oh Swee Kit’s AEIC dated.
2019-02-14	Chay Ann Ling’s AEIC dated.
2019-06-03	Assessment hearing.
2019-06-04	Assessment hearing.
2019-06-06	Assessment hearing.
2019-06-03	Assessment hearing.
2019-06-04	Assessment hearing.
2019-06-06	Assessment hearing.
2019-06-03	Assessment hearing.
2019-06-04	Assessment hearing.
2019-06-06	Assessment hearing.
2019-06-03	Assessment hearing.
2019-06-04	Assessment hearing.
2019-06-06	Assessment hearing.
2019-06-03	Assessment hearing.
2019-06-04	Assessment hearing.
2019-06-06	Assessment hearing.
2019-06-03	Assessment hearing.
2019-06-04	Assessment hearing.
2019-06-06	Assessment hearing.
2019-06-03	Assessment hearing.
2019-06-04	Assessment hearing.
2019-06-06	Assessment hearing.
2019-06-03	Assessment hearing.
2019-06-04	Assessment hearing.
2019-06-06	Assessment hearing.
2019-06-03	Assessment hearing.
2019-06-04	Assessment hearing.
2019-06-06	Assessment hearing.
2019-06-03	Assessment hearing.
2019-06-04	Assessment hearing.
2019-06-06	Assessment hearing.
2019-06-03	Assessment hearing.
2019-06-04	Assessment hearing.
2019-06-06	Assessment hearing.
2019-06-03	Assessment hearing.
2019-06-04	Assessment hearing.
2019-06-06	Assessment hearing.
2019-06-03	Assessment hearing.
2019-06-04	Assessment hearing.
2019-06-06	Assessment hearing.
2019-06-03	Assessment hearing.
2019-06-04	Assessment hearing.
2019-06-06	Assessment hearing.
2019-06-03	Assessment hearing.
2019-06-04	Assessment hearing.
2019-06-06	Assessment hearing.
2019-06-03	Assessment hearing.
2019-06-04	Assessment hearing.
2019-06-06	Assessment hearing.
2019-06-03	Assessment hearing.
2019-06-04	Assessment hearing.
2019-06-06	Assessment hearing.
2019-06-03	Assessment hearing.
2019-06-04	Assessment hearing.
2019-06-06	Assessment hearing.
2019-06-03	Assessment hearing.
2019-06-04	Assessment hearing.
2019-06-06	Assessment hearing.
2019-08-08	Judgment reserved.
2019-12-09	Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that OSK breached the contract by failing to take delivery of the products.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Failure to take delivery of goods
  - Repudiation of contract
Assessment of Damages
- Outcome: The court assessed the damages to be awarded to Sintalow, considering the loss of profits and the duty to mitigate loss.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Mitigation of loss
  - Loss of profits
  - Availability of market

8. Remedies Sought

Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Sintalow Hardware Pte Ltd v OSK Engineering Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2016] SGHC 104	Singapore	Dealt with the dispute as to liability.
Sintalow Hardware Pte Ltd v OSK Engineering Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2017] 2 SLR 372	Singapore	Dealt with the dispute as to liability.
Aero-Gate Pte Ltd v Engen Marine Engineering Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2013] 4 SLR 409	Singapore	Cited to support its argument that it had entered into binding contracts with Jiwa and Bellows to purchase the AFA GV and Thermosel expansion joints.
Transocean v Offshore International Ventures Ltd v Burgundy Global Exploration Corp	N/A	Yes	[2013] 3 SLR 1017	N/A	Cited by OSK submits that Sintalow is only entitled to loss of net profit.
Robertson Quay Investment Pte Ltd v Steen Consultants Pte Ltd and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2008] 2 SLR(R) 623	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the law did not demand that the plaintiff proved with complete certainty the exact amount of damage that he had suffered.
Tan Soo Leng David v Lim Thian Chai Charles and another	N/A	Yes	[1998] 1 SLR(R) 880	N/A	Cited for the principle that the rule of mitigation of damages did not require the innocent party to do more than was reasonably required to stem the loss.
The “Asia Star”	High Court	Yes	[2009] SGHC 91	Singapore	Cited in support of its position that mitigation principles do not require the injured party to incur extraordinary expenditure or act otherwise than in the ordinary course of business.
The “Asia Star”	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2010] 2 SLR 1154	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the duty to mitigate had its limits and could not oblige an aggrieved party to incur great expense or put itself to great inconvenience in stemming the loss resulting from the defaulting party’s breach.
Legend Building Supplies (Pte) Ltd v Chon Hwa Construction Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2000] SGHC 217	Singapore	Cited for its claim for loss of revenue.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Sale of Goods Act (Cap 393, 1999 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Products
Total Package Agreement
Master Contract
Products Agreements
Excess Valves
Excess Duker Hubless products
Excess Fusiotherm PPR products
Hospital quotations
Scrapped products

15.2 Keywords

breach of contract
damages
sale of goods
plumbing products
construction
Singapore
High Court
assessment
loss of profits
mitigation of loss

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Contract Law	90
Breach of Contract	90
Sale of Goods	90
Damages	85
Performance of Contract	70
Commercial Disputes	60
Quantum	50

16. Subjects

Contract Law
Damages
Sale of Goods