2253 Apparel Inc v Medico Titan Pte Ltd: Contract Formation, Misrepresentation, Unjust Enrichment, Conspiracy
2253 Apparel Inc, an American company, sued Medico Titan Pte Ltd, a Singapore company, in the General Division of the High Court of Singapore, alleging breach of contract, misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and conspiracy related to a failed glove supply agreement. The court, presided over by Senior Judge Lai Siu Chiu, dismissed 2253 Apparel Inc's claim, finding that there was no contract between 2253 Apparel Inc and Medico Titan Pte Ltd. The court ordered 2253 Apparel Inc to pay costs to Medico Titan Pte Ltd on a standard basis before 2021-07-28 and on an indemnity basis thereafter.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Plaintiff's claim is dismissed with costs to the defendant to be taxed on a standard basis before 2021-07-28 and on an indemnity basis thereafter, unless otherwise agreed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
American company 2253 Apparel Inc sued Singapore's Medico Titan for breach of contract, misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and conspiracy related to a glove supply deal. The High Court dismissed the claim, finding no contract between the parties.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2253 Apparel Inc | Plaintiff | Corporation | Claim Dismissed | Lost | Bhargavan Sujatha, Chidambaram Chandrasegar, R Dilip Kumar |
| Medico Titan Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Judgment for Defendant | Won | Muralli Rajaram, Lim Tianjun, Lucas Tjia, Teng Hin Weng, Mark |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Lai Siu Chiu | Senior Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Bhargavan Sujatha | Gavan Law Practice LLC |
| Chidambaram Chandrasegar | Gavan Law Practice LLC |
| R Dilip Kumar | Gavan Law Practice LLC |
| Muralli Rajaram | K&L Gates Straits Law LLP |
| Lim Tianjun | That.Legal LLC |
| Lucas Tjia | That.Legal LLC |
| Teng Hin Weng, Mark | That.Legal LLC |
4. Facts
- 2253 Apparel Inc, an American company, claimed it contracted with Medico Titan Pte Ltd for the supply of gloves.
- Medico Titan Pte Ltd is a Singapore company that acts as a middleman for PPE.
- 2253 Apparel Inc remitted US$997,500 to Medico Titan's bank account.
- The gloves were never delivered to 2253 Apparel Inc.
- 2253 Apparel Inc sued Medico Titan for breach of contract, misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and conspiracy.
- 2253 Apparel Inc also sued Ikarl in the US for the same matter.
- The payment was made to the defendant's SCB account by Faylez pursuant to the terms of the Faylez Agreement.
5. Formal Citations
- 2253 Apparel Inc v Medico Titan Pte Ltd, Suit No 334 of 2021, [2023] SGHC 104
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Medico Titan Pte Ltd incorporated | |
| Sufficiency Economy City Co Ltd appointed Medico Titan Pte Ltd as its official representative | |
| Medico Titan Pte Ltd appointed Faylez Berhad as an authorised reseller of the Gloves | |
| Sufficiency Economy City Co Ltd appointed Medico Titan Pte Ltd as its official reseller | |
| Medico Titan Pte Ltd and Faylez Berhad signed an agreement for the sale of 900 million boxes of gloves | |
| Faylez Berhad sent an offer letter to Ikarl Global Sdn Bhd to sell 30 million boxes of the Gloves | |
| Ikarl Global Sdn Bhd issued a purchase order to Faylez Berhad confirming the purchase of 30 million boxes of the Gloves | |
| Ikarl Global Sdn Bhd issued invoice to 2253 Apparel Inc for 500,000 boxes of gloves | |
| Faylez Berhad issued a purchase order to Ikarl Global Sdn Bhd confirming Ikarl's purchase order | |
| Mckelvey emailed Dan to verify Faylez Berhad as approved license holder | |
| 2253 Apparel Inc remitted US$997,500 to Medico Titan Pte Ltd's Standard Chartered Bank account | |
| Freight payment made to NCL International Logistics PCL | |
| Bill of Lading issued for vessel MSC Mirja V.QLO37N | |
| 2253 Apparel Inc commenced Suit No 334 of 2021 against Medico Titan Pte Ltd | |
| Court granted 2253 Apparel Inc's application for an injunction on an ex parte basis | |
| Court dismissed 2253 Apparel Inc's injunction application and granted Medico Titan Pte Ltd's setting-aside application | |
| Trial began | |
| Trial concluded | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that no contract existed between the plaintiff and the defendant.
- Category: Substantive
- Misrepresentation
- Outcome: The court found that even if the defendant's emails were misrepresentations, they occurred after the agreement between the plaintiff and Ikarl, and therefore had no legal effect.
- Category: Substantive
- Unjust Enrichment
- Outcome: The court found that the payment was made on behalf of Faylez pursuant to the Faylez Agreement, and therefore the plaintiff could not claim unjust enrichment against the defendant.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2013] 4 SLR 308
- [2022] 1 SLR 136
- Conspiracy
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to prove the elements of conspiracy.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2014] 1 SLR 860
8. Remedies Sought
- Refund of 30% deposit (US$997,500)
- Refund of freight payment (US$10,154)
- Loss of sales/profits (US$650,000)
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Misrepresentation
- Money Had and Received
- Total Failure of Consideration
- Mistake of Fact
- Unjust Enrichment
- Conspiracy
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Wholesale Clothing
- Medical Products
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Likpin International Ltd v Swiber Holdings Ltd and another | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 962 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the law frowns on a party taking inconsistent stands in different legal proceedings. |
| Ladd v Marshall | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1954] 1 WLR 1489 | England and Wales | Cited for the three criteria to justify the reception of fresh evidence or a new trial. |
| Alwie Handoyo v Tjong Very Sumito and another and another appeal | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 308 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that 'money had and received' and 'total failure of consideration' are not separate causes of action as the former is subsumed under the rubric of 'unjust enrichment'. |
| Esben Finance Ltd and others v Wong Hou-Liang Neil | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 1 SLR 136 | Singapore | Cited for the requisite elements the plaintiff must prove for a cause of action in unjust enrichment. |
| EFT Holdings, Inc and another v Marinteknik Shipbuilders (S) Pte Ltd and another | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2014] 1 SLR 860 | Singapore | Cited for the elements required to establish a claim for conspiracy. |
| Calderbank v Calderbank | England and Wales Court of Appeal | Yes | [1975] 3 All ER 333 | England and Wales | Cited regarding Calderbank letters and offers to settle. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misrepresentation Act 1967 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act 1893 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- SKYMED nitrile gloves
- Personal protection equipment
- 30% deposit
- Faylez Agreement
- Ikarl's invoice
- Downstream buyer
- Upstream supplier
- Calderbank letter
15.2 Keywords
- contract
- gloves
- misrepresentation
- unjust enrichment
- conspiracy
- PPE
- Singapore
- litigation
16. Subjects
- Contract Law
- Commercial Dispute
- Supply Agreement
17. Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Misrepresentation
- Restitution
- Unjust Enrichment
- Tort
- Conspiracy