Zhongshan Shengwang v Triple D: Breach of Contract & Intention to Create Legal Relations
In Zhongshan Shengwang Electrical Appliance Co Ltd v Triple D Trading Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore heard a claim by Zhongshan Shengwang Electrical Appliance Co Ltd ("Shengwang") against Triple D Trading Pte Ltd ("Triple D") for the outstanding purchase price of ceiling fans. Triple D argued that it bought the goods from Zhongshan Tanfull Star Trade Co Ltd (“Tanfull”), not Shengwang. The court found in favor of Shengwang, holding that Triple D had contracted directly with Shengwang and was liable for the outstanding amount of CNY1,885,630 for breach of contract.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Shengwang sued Triple D for the outstanding purchase price of ceiling fans. The court found in favor of Shengwang, allowing its claim for breach of contract.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zhongshan Shengwang Electrical Appliance Co Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | |
| Triple D Trading Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Claim Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Hoo Sheau Peng | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Shengwang claimed for the outstanding purchase price of ceiling fans ordered by Triple D.
- Triple D argued that it bought the goods from Tanfull, not Shengwang.
- The parties began doing business in December 2017.
- Sometime during or after July 2020, Tanfull came into the picture.
- Triple D received the Goods in four separate shipments between 30 March 2021 and 24 May 2021.
- Triple D made partial payment of CNY300,000, with CNY1,885,630 remaining unpaid.
5. Formal Citations
- Zhongshan Shengwang Electrical Appliance Co Ltd v Triple D Trading Pte Ltd, Suit No 189 of 2022, [2023] SGHC 239
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Parties began doing business with each other. | |
| Tanfull came into the picture. | |
| Export Agency Agreement dated. | |
| Triple D placed an order with Shengwang. | |
| Triple D placed an order with Shengwang. | |
| Triple D placed two separate orders with Shengwang. | |
| Triple D received the Goods in four separate shipments. | |
| Triple D received the Goods in four separate shipments. | |
| Statement of Claim filed. | |
| Defence filed. | |
| Defendant’s List of Documents filed. | |
| Notice of Non-Admission filed. | |
| Hearing Transcript. | |
| Hearing Transcript. | |
| Hearing Transcript. | |
| Plaintiff’s Closing Submissions. | |
| Defendant’s Closing Submissions. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that Triple D had directly contracted with Shengwang for the sale and supply of goods and had failed to make full payment, constituting a breach of contract.
- Category: Substantive
- Intention to Create Legal Relations
- Outcome: The court found that there was an intention to create legal relations between Shengwang and Triple D.
- Category: Substantive
- Admissibility of Evidence
- Outcome: The court ruled on the admissibility and authenticity of certain evidence, including WeChat messages and the Export Agency Agreement.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Wholesale Trade
- Retail
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ARS v ART | High Court | Yes | [2015] SGHC 78 | Singapore | Cited for the legal burden of proof on a plaintiff to establish every element of its claim on the balance of probabilities. |
| Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank BA v Motorola Electronics Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 63 | Singapore | Cited for the evidential burden, or the tactical onus to contradict, weaken, or explain away evidence that has been led, may shift from one party to another. |
| Britestone Pte Ltd v Smith & Associates Far East, Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 855 | Singapore | Cited for the evidential burden, or the tactical onus to contradict, weaken, or explain away evidence that has been led, may shift from one party to another. |
| Tan Chin Hock v Teo Cher Koon | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 2 SLR 314 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that if the state of the evidence is unsatisfactory, the court may simply find that the plaintiff has failed to discharge the burden of proof. |
| CIMB Bank Bhd v World Fuel Services (Singapore) Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 1217 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where a Notice of Non-Admission is issued in respect of a document sought to be adduced at trial and its authenticity is thereby disputed, the party seeking to adduce the document is put to strict proof of its authenticity. |
| Nambu PVD Pte Ltd v UBTS Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 1 SLR 391 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that invoices may simply be the requests or demands for payments made pursuant to contracts. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Evidence Act 1893 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Ceiling fans
- Outstanding purchase price
- Export agent
- Export Agency Agreement
- Invoices
- Shipments
- Legal relations
15.2 Keywords
- Contract
- Ceiling Fans
- Singapore
- Commercial
- Breach
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Contract Law | 90 |
| Breach of Contract | 80 |
| Evidence | 70 |
| Intention to create legal relations | 60 |
| Admissibility of evidence | 50 |
| Business Litigation | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Contract Law
- Commercial Dispute
- Sale of Goods