Haribo Asia Pacific Pte Ltd v Aquarius Corp: Breach of Contract, Damages, and Set-off Dispute

In Haribo Asia Pacific Pte Ltd v Aquarius Corporation, the High Court of Singapore heard a breach of contract claim by Haribo against Aquarius for outstanding invoices, and a counterclaim by Aquarius for damages due to alleged breaches of the distribution agreement. The court, presided over by Lee Seiu Kin J, allowed Haribo's claim for the principal sum but allowed Aquarius's counterclaim in part, ordering Haribo to pay damages. The court also found that the requirements for set-off had been satisfied. The case involved disputes over the validity of termination notices, alleged breaches of contract, and the admissibility of evidence related to German law.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff in part and Judgment for Defendant in part; counterclaim allowed in part.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court case between Haribo and Aquarius concerning a distribution agreement, breach of contract, and counterclaim for damages. Judgment for Haribo.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Aquarius CorporationDefendant, Plaintiff in CounterclaimCorporationCounterclaim allowed in partPartial
Haribo Asia Pacific Pte LtdPlaintiff, Defendant in CounterclaimCorporationClaim allowed in partPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lee Seiu KinJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Ng Shu WenRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Devathas SatianathanRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Gregory VijayendranRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Low Weng HongRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Kevin TanRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Chou Sean YuWongPartnership LLP
Oh Sheng Loong FrankWongPartnership LLP
Daniel Lee Wai YongWongPartnership LLP
Eve Dana Ng Shi YingWongPartnership LLP

4. Facts

  1. Haribo and Aquarius entered into a distributorship agreement in 2016.
  2. Aquarius was to distribute Haribo products in South Korea.
  3. Haribo issued a termination notice to Aquarius in October 2016.
  4. Aquarius claimed Haribo breached the agreement and counterclaimed for damages.
  5. Aquarius alleged Haribo failed to assist with food safety and parallel import issues.
  6. Haribo halted product deliveries to Aquarius.
  7. The 2016 DA was governed by German law.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Haribo Asia Pacific Pte Ltd v Aquarius Corp, Suit No 331 of 2018, [2021] SGHC 278

6. Timeline

DateEvent
2014 DA entered into
Consumer complaint about wood contaminant
Defendant learnt of new recipe products with inaccurate labels
Defendant terminated 2014 DA
SCA and 2016 DA executed
Defendant discovered Haribo GmbH supporting parallel imports
Defendant sought assistance regarding MFDS inquiry
Defendant sent emails requesting meeting
Plaintiff issued First Termination Notice
Defendant issued cure notice
Defendant issued Termination Notice
Plaintiff issued Second Termination Notice
Defendant requested dispute resolution
Statement of Claim filed
Defence and Counterclaim filed
Nikolay Karpuzov’s AEIC
Eric Hahn’s AEIC
Reply submissions tendered
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found that the Plaintiff breached its obligation to deliver goods, but did not breach its duty to cooperate.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to deliver goods
      • Failure to cooperate
      • Repudiatory breach
  2. Validity of Termination Notice
    • Outcome: The court found that the Plaintiff's first termination notice was valid, and the Defendant's termination notice was also valid.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Preconditions to termination
      • Good faith termination
      • Repudiatory breach
  3. Set-off
    • Outcome: The court found that the requirements for set-off were satisfied.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Requirements for set-off
      • Declaration of set-off
      • Effect of set-off
  4. Damages
    • Outcome: The court found that the Defendant was entitled to damages for lost profits, but limited the amount based on causation.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Lost profits
      • Causation
      • Exclusion of liability
  5. Admissibility of Evidence
    • Outcome: The court considered expert evidence on German law and the quantification of damages.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Expert evidence
      • Foreign law

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages
  2. Set-off

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • International Trade Disputes
  • Contract Disputes

11. Industries

  • Food and Beverage

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Silberline Asia Pacific Inc v Lim Yong Wah AllanHigh CourtYes[2006] SGHC 27SingaporeCited for the minimum performance principle in distributorship agreements.
Star City Pty Ltd (fka Sydney Harbour Casino Pty Ltd) v Tan Hong WoonHigh CourtYes[2002] 1 SLR(R) 306SingaporeCited for the principle that matters of procedure are governed by the lex fori.
Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank BA (trading as Rabobank International), Singapore Branch v Motorola Electronics Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2011] 2 SLR 63SingaporeCited for the principle that the burden of proof lies on the party asserting the facts underlying its defences.
Saeng-Un Udom v PPHigh CourtYes[2001] 2 SLR(R) 1SingaporeCited for the principle that the court does not blindly accept an expert’s evidence simply because it is not contradicted.
Sakthivel Punithavathi v PPHigh CourtYes[2007] 2 SLR(R) 983SingaporeCited for the principle that the court does not blindly accept an expert’s evidence simply because it is not contradicted.
Poh Soon Kiat v Desert Palace Inc (trading as Caesars Palace)High CourtYes[2010] 1 SLR 1129SingaporeCited for the principle that the court does not blindly accept an expert’s evidence simply because it is not contradicted.
MCC Proceeds Inc v Bishopsgate Investment Trust plcCourt of AppealYes[1999] CLC 417England and WalesCited regarding the court’s role vis-à-vis a foreign law expert.
Pacific Recreation Pte Ltd v S Y Technology IncCourt of AppealYes[2008] 2 SLR(R) 391SingaporeCited regarding the court’s role vis-à-vis a foreign law expert.
Britestone Pte Ltd v Smith & Associates Far East, LtdCourt of AppealYes[2007] 4 SLR(R) 855SingaporeCited for the principle of tactical onus.
International Research Corp PLC v Lufthansa Systems Asia Pacific Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2014] 1 SLR 130SingaporeCited as an example of clauses which oblige parties to attempt mediation before commencing either litigation or arbitration.
JWR Pte Ltd v Edmond Pereira Law CorporationHigh CourtYes[2020] 4 SLR 832SingaporeCited regarding unsubstantiated expectations of damages.
Goh Suan Hee v Teo Cher TeckHigh CourtYes[2010] 1 SLR 367SingaporeCited for the principle that the quantification of damages is to be determined by Singapore law as the lex fori.
Tatung Electronics (S) Pte Ltd v Binatone International LtdCourt of AppealYes[1991] 2 SLR(R) 231SingaporeCited for the application of Miliangos.
Indo Commercial Society (Pte) Ltd v EbrahimHigh CourtYes[1992] 2 SLR(R) 667SingaporeCited for the principle that Miliangos could not be applied in reverse.
Miliangos v George Frank (Textiles) LtdHouse of LordsYes[1976] AC 443United KingdomCited for the principle that judgments can be entered for a sum expressed in a foreign currency.
Fearns (trading as Autopaint International) v Anglo-Dutch Paint & Chemical Co LtdHigh CourtYes[2011] 1 WLR 366England and WalesCited for the approach which the court should adopt when ordering such a set-off between amounts payable in different currencies.
Stooke v TaylorQueen's Bench DivisionYes(1880) 5 QBD 569England and WalesCited for the nature of a set off as a defence.
Gathercole v SmithQueen's Bench DivisionYes(1881) 7 QBD 626England and WalesCited for the nature of a set off as a defence.
Di Ferdinando v Simon, Smits & CoKing's Bench DivisionYes[1920] 3 KB 409England and WalesCited for the breach-date rule.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch section 247Germany
Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch section 138Germany
Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch section 226Germany
Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch section 242Germany
Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch section 308Germany
Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch section 307Germany
Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch section 273Germany
Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch section 276Germany
Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch section 387Germany
Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch section 388Germany
Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch section 389Germany
Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed) section 12(1)Singapore
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) section 105Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Distributorship Agreement
  • Termination Notice
  • Breach of Contract
  • Lost Profits
  • Set-off
  • German Law
  • Food Safety
  • Parallel Imports
  • Cure Notice
  • Repudiatory Breach
  • Undelivered Portions
  • Sales Reports
  • Right of Retention

15.2 Keywords

  • Contract
  • Breach
  • Damages
  • Set-off
  • Distribution
  • German Law
  • Singapore
  • Haribo
  • Aquarius

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Contract Law75
Set-off70
Damages65
Civil Litigation60
Evidence50
Foreign Law40

16. Subjects

  • Contract Law
  • Civil Procedure
  • International Trade