Ramo Industries v DLE Solutions: Structural Steel Contract Dispute

In a suit before the High Court of Singapore, Ramo Industries Pte Ltd, the plaintiff, sued DLE Solutions Pte Ltd, the defendant, over a contract for the supply, fabrication, painting, and delivery of structural steel for an accommodation camp in Malaysia. Ramo claimed DLE breached the contract by failing to deliver the required quantities of steel, delivering unpainted steel, and improperly fabricating the steel, leading to delays and additional costs. DLE counterclaimed for retention monies and the value of bolts supplied. The court found in favor of Ramo on several claims, including the shortfall in steel, unpainted steel, improper fabrication, and demurrage charges, and the delay issue. The court allowed DLE's counterclaim for retention monies, to be set off against Ramo's claim. The court dismissed DLE's counterclaim for the value of bolts supplied.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff in part; Counterclaim allowed in part.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court judgment on a contract dispute between Ramo Industries and DLE Solutions regarding the supply of structural steel.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Ramo Industries Pte LtdPlaintiffCorporationClaim allowed in partPartial
DLE Solutions Pte LtdDefendantCorporationCounterclaim allowed in partPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chan Seng OnnJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Moiz Haider SithawallaTan Rajah & Cheah
Yong Manling JasmineTan Rajah & Cheah
Gan Guo BinWinston Quek & Company
Quek Seng Soon WinstonWinston Quek & Company

4. Facts

  1. Ramo and DLE entered into a contract for the supply of structural steel.
  2. DLE was to supply, fabricate, paint, and deliver structural steel to a site in Malaysia.
  3. Ramo claimed DLE failed to deliver the required quantities of steel.
  4. Ramo claimed DLE delivered unpainted steel.
  5. Ramo claimed DLE improperly fabricated the steel.
  6. Ramo claimed DLE's actions caused delays and additional costs.
  7. DLE counterclaimed for retention monies and the value of bolts supplied.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Ramo Industries Pte Ltd vDLE Solutions Pte Ltd, Suit No 1170 of 2017, [2020] SGHC 04

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Letter of Award issued by Ramo to DLE
Dennis sent Guna a Whatsapp message regarding costing
Dennis sent an email to Rohit inquiring about steel grade and pricing
Dennis sent Sri an email requesting project information
Oral Price Agreement reached between Sri and Dennis
Sri sent Dennis a draft of the Letter of Award
Elaine replied to Sri with an email attaching an unsigned draft with handwritten mark-ups
Dennis confirmed receiving structural drawings
Elaine sent an email to Sri regarding comments on the contract draft
DLE sent Ramo an email enquiring about seven issues for Ramo to clarify
Ramo replied on the seven issues
Elaine replied to Ramo seeking to negotiate on the payment terms by Letter of Credit
Elaine sent an email to Sri to forward the revised contract
Ramo clarified the issue of payment terms by letter of credit
Elaine sent Ramo an email regarding payment terms and LC requirements
Whatsapp correspondence between Dennis and Guna regarding LC
Elaine sent Mahe an email proposing CIF term
Dennis sent a Whatsapp message to Guna regarding LC requirements
Sri sent Elaine a revised draft Letter of Award
Sri sent an email to DLE enclosing a copy of the PO signed by Ramo
Dennis replied in an email to Sri regarding the PO
DLE accepted the PO
UOB issued the first letter of credit
Elaine sent an email to Sri regarding discrepancies in the contract
Guna sought Dennis’ confirmation on the shipment process
Parties agreed that the retention monies from the seventh shipment onwards would be 5%
UOB issued Letter of Credit Amendment No. 4
Sri sent DLE an email requesting the signed contract
Elaine replied to Sri noting that DLE had already signed the PO
Remaining structural steel received by Ramo
Trial bifurcated into Liability Phase and Assessment of Damages Phase
Trial began
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found that DLE breached the contract by failing to meet its obligations.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to deliver requisite quantities of structural steel
      • Delivery of unpainted structural steel
      • Improper fabrication of structural steel
  2. Contract Interpretation
    • Outcome: The court held that the contract was constituted by the Letter of Award, the Oral Price Agreement, and the Purchase Order.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Determining the terms of the contract
      • Binding nature of the Letter of Award
  3. Liability for Demurrage Charges
    • Outcome: The court found DLE liable for the demurrage charges incurred as a result of its failure to deliver painted structural steel and delays in the customs clearance process.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Delays in customs clearance
      • Failure to deliver painted structural steel
  4. Liquidated Damages
    • Outcome: The court found DLE liable for liquidated damages for the delay in the delivery of the structural steel.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Delay in delivery of structural steel

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages
  2. Liquidated Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Construction Law
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Ng Chee Chuan v Ng Ai TeeHigh CourtYes[2009] 2 SLR(R) 918SingaporeCited for the principle regarding the assessment of witness credibility.
Simpson Marine (SEA) Pte Ltd v Jiacipto JiaravanonCourt of AppealYes[2019] 1 SLR 696SingaporeCited for the principle regarding the use of subsequent conduct in Singapore contract law.
ARS v ART and anorHigh CourtYes[2015] SGHC 78SingaporeCited for the principle that conduct can be explained by a number of reasons.
Beckkett Pte Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG and another and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2009] 3 SLR(R) 452SingaporeCited for the principle that a bifurcation is only a procedural order that is not binding on a trial judge.
Millenia Pte Ltd (formerly known as Pontiac Marina Pte Ltd) v Dragages Singapore Pte Ltd (formerly known as Dragages et Travaux Publics (Singapore) Pte Ltd) and others (Arup Singapore Pte Ltd, third party)High CourtYes[2019] 4 SLR 1075SingaporeCited for the principle regarding the acceptance of evidence based on a sample.

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

  • Structural steel
  • Letter of Award
  • Purchase Order
  • Letters of Credit
  • Demurrage
  • Fabrication
  • Customs clearance
  • Retention monies
  • Delivery schedule

15.2 Keywords

  • construction contract
  • structural steel
  • breach of contract
  • liquidated damages
  • demurrage
  • Singapore High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Building and Construction Law95
Building and Construction Contracts90
Contract Law90
Construction Law85
Construction Contracts80
Contractual terms80
Construction75
Breach of Contract70
Performance of Contract60
Construction Defects60
Construction of Contract50
Interpretation of Contract50
Construction of Contracts50
Interpretation of Contracts50

16. Subjects

  • Construction Dispute
  • Contract Law
  • Building and Construction Law