Jurong Town Corp v Wishing Star Ltd (No 2)[2005] 3 SLR 283; [2005] SGCA 25

1/23/2016 JurongTownCorpvWishingStarLtd(No2)[2005]3SLR283[2005]SGCA25

http://www.singaporelaw.sg/sglaw/lawsofsingapore/caselaw/freelaw/courtofappealjudgments/12620jurongtowncorpvwishingstarltdno2200 1/25

JurongTownCorpvWishingStarLtd(No2)[2005]3SLR283[2005]SGCA25

SuitNo: CA111/2004

DecisionDate: 13May2005

Court: CourtofAppeal

Coram: ChaoHickTinJA,LaiKewChaiJ,WooBihLiJ

Counsel: KShanmugamSC,HoChienMienandJSathiaseelan(AllenandGledhill)fortheappellant,ChristopherChuah,LeeHwaiBinandTohChenHan(WongPartnership)andTanLiamBengandEugeneTan(DrewandNapierLLC)fortherespondent

SubjectArea/CatchwordsContract

Judgment

13May2005 Judgmentreserved.WooBihLiJ(deliveringthejudgmentofthecourt):

Introduction1Theappellant,JurongTownCorporation(JTC),isastatutorybody.Therespondent,WishingStarLimited(WSL),isacompanyregisteredinHongKongwhichcarriesonthebusinessofafaadecladdingcontractor.2JTCwasdevelopingtheBiopoliswhichwastobea185,000mresearchcomplexhousingkeybiomedicalresearchinstitutesandbiotechnologicalcompanies.TheBiopoliswastocompriseseventowerblocksandthreebasementlevels.ThevisionfortheBiopoliswasthatitwouldbeaworldclassbiomedicalsciencesresearchanddevelopmenthubinSingapore.Astherewaskeencompetitionataninternationallevelbyvariousgovernmentstopromotetheircountriesassuchahub,theBiopoliswastobedevelopedonafasttrack.Accordingly,thedevelopmentoftheBiopoliswastobecompletedwithin19monthsinsteadofthe30monthsthataprojectofsuchasizewouldnormallyrequire.

3ThemaincontractwaseventuallyawardedtoSamsungCorporation(EngineeringandConstructionGroup)(Samsung).Animportantpartoftheconstructionworkswasthefaadeworks.ThefaadeworksweretobeawardedbyJTCtoanominatedsubcontractor(NSC).ThismeantthattheNSCwastobenominatedorselectedbyJTCafterwhichthemaincontractorSamsungwasobligedtoenterintoacontractwiththeNSCandberesponsiblefortheNSCsperformanceofthecontractforthefaadeworks,unlessSamsunghadvalidobjectionsagainstenteringintosuchacontract.

4JTCwasassistedbyitsconsultant,JurongConsultantsPteLtd(JCPL),whichwasawhollyownedsubsidiaryofJTC.JCPLinvitedtendersforthefaadeworks.WSLsubmitteditstenderinApril2002.Itwasoneofeighttenderersforthefaadeworks.Itsbidof$54mwasthelowest.However,SamsungsoughttodissuadeJCPLfromawardingWSLthesubcontractforsuchworks.SamsungwasnotfamiliarwithWSLandWSLhadnoexperienceindoingsuchworksinSingapore.Samsungpreferredanothersubcontractorwhosebidwasforamuchhighersumof$90m.Thiswasthehighestbid.Thesecondlowestbidwas$54,071,488.NotwithstandingSamsungsviews,thecontractforthefaadeworkswaseventuallyawardedtoWSLon14June2002.However,SamsungresistedenteringintoanycontractwithWLS.

5ItwascommongroundbetweenWSLandJTCthatuntilSamsungenteredintoacontractwithWSL,WSLscontractremainedwithJTC.Eventually,forreasonswhichweshallelaboratebelow,JTCterminateditscontractwithWSLfor,interalia,misrepresentationandbreachofcontract.



6WSLthencommencedthepresentactionagainstJTCforvariousreliefs,includingdamagesforwrongfultermination.Beforethetrialjudge,JTCappliedfortheissueofmisrepresentationtobetriedfirstonthebasisthatifthisissuewasdecidedinJTCsfavour,itwouldbeunnecessarytogointothevariousallegationsofbreachofcontract.NotwithstandingWSLsoppositiontothisapplication,thetrialjudgeagreedtoJTCsapplication.Afterhearingevidenceandsubmissionsontheissueofmisrepresentation,thetrialjudgedecidedthatalthoughWSLwasguiltyofmisrepresentingsomefacts,JTChadnotreliedonthemisrepresentations.Furthermore,thetrialjudgedecidedthatJTChadaffirmedthecontractwithWSLafterithadknowledgeofthemisrepresentations:seeWishingStarLtdvJurongTownCorp(No2)[2005]1SLR339.JTCthenappealedtotheCourtofAppealagainstthisdecision.TherestofthetrialwasheldinabeyancependingtheoutcomeofJTCsappeal.

Issues

7Theissuesbeforeusare:

(a)WhethercertainrepresentationsmadebyWSLwerefalse.Ifso,thefollowingissueswouldberelevant.

(b)Whetherthemisrepresentationsweremadefraudulently.

(c)WhetherJTCwasinducedbyWSLsmisrepresentationstoawardthecontractforfaadeworkstoWSL.

(d)WhetherJTChadelectedtoaffirmthesaidcontractafterithadbecomeawareoftheallegedmisrepresentations.

Mainplayers

8Asanumberofpeoplewereinvolved,wesetoutbelowthenamesofthemainplayersandtheirappointments:

(a)JCPL:

(i)MaoWheyYingExecutiveVicePresident(EVP)inchargeofthePublicBusinessDivision(PBD)ofJCPL.AsEVPofPBD,shewasalsoappointedastheSuperintendingOfficer(SO)forallpublicsectorprojectsundertakenbyJCPL(savefordemolitionworks).AtanyonetimeshemighthavebeenholdingtheappointmentofSOformorethan100projectsconcurrently.

(ii)NickChangKoongCheanPrincipalArchitect,SpecialisedParksDepartment,PBDofJCPL.AppointedSOsRepresentativeoftheBiopolisproject.

(iii)OngTiongBengVicePresidentinJCPL.AppointedProjectManager(Building)oftheBiopolisproject.

(iv)LimLyeHuatManagerinJCPL.QualifiedInternalAuditorcertifiedbytheConstructionIndustryDevelopmentBoard.HeisresponsibleforensuringthatallconstructionsitesmanagedbyJCPLcomplywithISOstandards.

(b)JTC:

(i)DrStevenChooKianKoonBoardmemberofJTC.AlsoamemberofTenderBoardBofJTCbetweenOctober2001andDecember2002.TenderBoardBwastheultimateauthorityapprovingtheawardofthecontracttoWSL.

(ii)BrigadierGeneral(BG)PhilipSuAssistantChiefExecutiveOfficerofJTC.

(iii)SpencerLimDeputyDirector(Development&Marketing)ofJTC.

(iv)BruceCharlesWymondIndependentexpertengagedbyJTC.



(c)Samsung

(i)HarrisonKHParkSeniorProjectManagerinSamsungfortheBiopolisproject.

(d)WSL

(i)CarolWenDirectorofWSL.

(ii)TongCheHung(alsoreferredtoasCHTong)Architectbytraining.InitiallyassignedbyWSLasProjectDirectoroftheBiopolisprojectandthenreassignedasSeniorProjectDirector.

(iii)JackKohAssignedbyWSLasProjectDirectorfortheBiopolisprojectwhenCHTongwasreassignedasSeniorProjectDirector.

(iv)JohnAndrewShillinglawIndependentexpertengagedbyWSL.

Therepresentations

9JTCallegedthatWSLhadmadetenrepresentationsknowingthatsuchrepresentationswerefalse.Therepresentationswere:

(a)WSLhadcompletedacurtainwallingsystemofS$10mandaboveinasingleprojectforthepastfiveyears

(b)WSLhadatleasttwoprojectmanagerswith20yearsexperienceforunitisedcurtainwallprojects

(c)WSLhadachiefdesignmanagerwithatleast20yearsexperienceforunitisedcurtainwallprojects

(d)WSLsfacilitieshadaninhouseproductioncapacityof10,000mpermonthforcurtainwalls

(e)WSLsinhousefacilitiesincludedametalpanelfabricationplant

(f)WSLsinhousefacilitiesincludeda3,000mwindowandcurtainwallplant

(g)WSLsinhousefacilitiesincludeda2,000mstonefabricationplant

(h)WSLsinhousefacilitiesincludeda1,000mpolyesterpowdercoatingplant

(i)WSLsinhousefacilitiesincludedafluorocarboncoatingworkshopand

(j)WSLsinhousefacilitiesincludedatestlaboratoryforcladdingsystems.

Wewillrefertotheserepresentationsasrepresentations(a)to(j)forconvenience.TherepresentationsweremadeinanintroductionofWSLwhichwassubmittedwithitstenderand/orlettersfromWSLbeforetheawardofthecontracttoWSL.WSLdidnotdenymakingtherepresentations.WewouldaddthattherepresentationsaboutitsinhousefacilitieswereinrespectofitsfacilitieslocatedinWishingStarIndustrialPark(WSIP)atDongguan,GuangdongProvince,inthePeoplesRepublicofChina(China).

10JTCscasewasthatJCPLdiscoveredthattherepresentationswerefalsewhenJCPLmadeavisittoChinabetween10to14July2002.Wewillelaborateonthisvisitandothervisitswhenwecometotheissueofelectionandaffirmation.

11Tenderersforthefaadeworkshadtomeetvariousevaluationcriteria.ThecriteriaweregroupedunderCriticalCriteriaandOtherCriteria.

12Itwascommongroundthatrepresentation(a)aboutWSLhavingcompletedacurtainwallingsystemof$10mandaboveinasingleprojectwasinrespectofaprojectinChinaandthiswasinresponsetoacriterionundertheCriticalCriteria.AlthoughJTChadclaimedthatthiswasamisrepresentationbeforethetrialjudge,iteventuallydroppedthisallegationbeforeus.Accordingly,weneedsaynomoreaboutit.

WhethertheremainingrepresentationsbyWSLwerefalse



Representation(b)WSLhadatleasttwoprojectmanagerswith20yearsexperienceforunitisedcurtainwallprojects

13Representation(b)wastomeetitem(i)oftheOtherCriteria.Thetrialjudgedidnotmakeanyfindingastowhetherthisrepresentationwastrueornot.

14WSLspositionwasthatatthetimeoftender,itdidhavetwoprojectmanagerswith20yearsexperienceforunitisedcurtainwallprojects.TheseprojectmanagerswereMrCheungTakMingandMrTonyTangChiFai.However,atthetrial,WSLdidnotproduceeitherofthesepersonsaswitnesses.

15AsregardsMrCheung,WSLallegedthathehadpassedawaybutdidnotproducehisdeathcertificate.WSLsoughttoestablishthathehadbeenemployedbyWSLbyrelyingonlettersofofferofemploymentdated16October1982and16February1983fromWSLtoMrCheung.WSLalsoreliedonpaymentvouchersforMrCheungsmonthlybasicsalarybetweenMarchtoSeptember2002andarsum.

16Weareoftheviewthatevenifthelettersofemploymentweregenuine,theydonothelpWSLverymuchespeciallysincetheyweredatedmanyyearsbefore2002andtheoffersofemploymentwereforthepostofchiefdesignerandnotprojectmanager.ThepaymentvouchersreferredtoMrCheungsdepartmentasTechnicalandcouldeasilyhavebeenfabricated.Inanyevent,theydidnotshowthathehadhad20yearsexperienceasprojectmanagerforunitisedcurtainwallprojects.TherewasahandwrittenrsumofMrCheungwithwordsinChineseandEnglish.Evenifthisrsumweregenuine,theEnglishwordsthereinmentionedthathehadbeenadesignerandacontractengineerduringvariousperiodsbutdidnotmentionthathehadbeenaprojectmanager.WeareoftheviewthatMrCheungwasnotaprojectmanagerwith20yearsexperienceforunitisedcurtainwallprojectsatthetimeofWSLstender.

17AsforMrTang,hehadsignedanaffidavitofevidenceinchiefforWSLbut,asmentionedabove,hewasnotproducedasawitnesseither.Nosatisfactoryexplanationwasgivenforthisomission.WSLsoughttoestablishthathewastheiremployeewiththerequisiteexperienceinthesamemannerasitdidforMrCheung.TherewasaWSLletterofferingemploymenttoMrTangdated20November2001.ThislettermentionedthepositionofprojectmanagerandwasapparentlysignedbyMrTangtosignifyhisacceptanceoftheoffer.TherewerealsosimilarpaymentvouchersforMrTangsmonthlybasicsalarybetweenMarchandSeptember2002butapparentlynorsum.Wefindthisevidenceinadequate.

18Inaddition,whenrepresentativesfromJTCwenttovisitWSIPon3September2002,CHTongwasqueriedonWSLsprojectmanagersandchiefdesignmanager.ThenamesMrTongprovidedthenweredifferentfromthosewhichWSLraisedforthetrial.Wewillelaborateonthislater.

19Inthecircumstances,weareoftheviewthatMrTangwasalsonotaprojectmanagerwith20yearsexperienceforunitisedcurtainwallprojectsatthetimeofWSLstender.

20Accordingly,weareoftheviewthatrepresentation(b)wasfalse.

Representation(c)WSLhadachiefdesignerwithatleast20yearsexperienceforunitisedcurtainwallprojects

21Representation(c)wastomeetitem(l)(i)oftheOtherCriteria.Thetrialjudgedidnotmakeanyfindingastowhetherthisrepresentationwastrueornot.

22WSLspositionwasthatitdidhavesuchachiefdesignerbythenameofAndyChanChungShingatthetimeoftender.However,again,WSLdidnotproduceMrChanasitswitnessalthoughMrChanhadfiledanaffidavitofevidenceinchiefasdidMrTang.

23WSLalsoreliedonsimilarevidencetoprovethatMrChanwasachiefdesignerwiththerequisiteexperience.Therewasaletterdated22January1985fromWSLtoMrChanofferinghimemploymentasadesignengineertraineeandaletterdated22April1985fromWSLtoMrChanstatingthathehadcompletedhisprobation.TherewerepaymentvouchersforMrChansmonthlybasicsalarybetweenMarchandSeptember2002andhisrsum.Accordingtothersum,MrChanhadworkingexperienceasasummertraineewithFongShingCottonMillbetweenJulyandAugust1980.HewasalsoasummertraineewithCharlesHaswell&PartnersConsultingEngineersbetweenJuly1982toAugust1982.Thersumdidnotsaythatthesummertrainingwasfordesignwork.NeitherdiditshowwhatworkexperiencehehadacquiredbetweenSeptember1980andJune



fordesignwork.NeitherdiditshowwhatworkexperiencehehadacquiredbetweenSeptember1980andJune1982andbetweenSeptember1982toJanuary1985whenhewaspurportedlyemployedbyWSLasadesignengineertrainee.Furthermore,asmentionedabove,CHTonghadmentionedapersonwithadifferentnameasWSLschiefdesignerduringJTCsvisittoChina.24Inthecircumstances,weareoftheviewthatMrChanwasnotachiefdesignerwiththerequisiteexperienceatthetimeofWSLstender.Accordinglyrepresentation(c)wasfalse.25Thereisoneotherpointwewouldmention.WSLsubmittedthatNickChanghadadmittedincrossexaminationthatWSLprobablyhadtherelevantpersonnelatthetimeoftender.Thissubmissionisnotaccurate.NickChangsevidencewasasfollows:

Q:WishingStarneverhadthesepeoplementionedintheiremployment?A:Iftheyareabletocalloutthenamesspecificallyandwiththedegreenexttoit,Imean,Iwouldbelievethatthesepeopleprobablyhadbeenhiredbeforeorstillarethere,Iamnotsure.

26Inanyevent,NickChanghadnopersonalknowledgewhetherWSLhadtheprojectmanagersandchiefdesignerasclaimedbyWSL.Atmost,hewasmerelyventuringhispersonalopinion.

Representation(d)WSLsfacilitieshadaninhouseproductioncapacityof10,000mforcurtainwallsandrepresentation(f)WSLsfacilitiesincludeda3,000mwindowandcurtainwallplant27Representation(d)wastomeetitem(n)oftheOtherCriteria.Inaddition,WSLalsomaderepresentation(f).Itseemsthatrepresentation(f)wasconnectedwithrepresentation(d)because(f)dealtwiththefloorareaofWSLscurtainwallplantwhile(d)dealtwithitsproductioncapacity.28WSLassertedthatrepresentation(d)appliedonlytothemullionsandtransomsbutnottothecladdingitself.Amullionisaverticalbarbetweenthepanesofglassinawindow,whileatransomisastrengtheningcrossbarsetaboveawindow.Claddingreferstothecoveringofthewall.WSLspositionwasthatitsplantcouldproduce10,000mofmullionsandtransomspermonth.ItreliedontheevidenceofitsexpertDrShillinglawthatthedefinitionofcurtainwallincludedonlythemullionsandtransoms.

29ThetrialjudgewasoftheviewthatwhileDrShillinglawsexplanationwasplausible,theevidenceonthewholesuggestedthatwhenthepartiesreferredtothecurtainwall,thereferencewastotheentirecurtainwall,claddingandall.WSLassertedthatthetrialjudgehaderredinhisconclusion.BesidesrelyingonDrShillinglawsevidence,WSLraisedthefollowingarguments.

30WSLsubmittedthatNickChanghadexplainedthatthe10,000mcapacitywasbasedonanestimateoftheareaofthetotalfaadeforPhase1whichinvolvedBlocks1,3and4thatwere30,000minsizeandapproximatelythreemonthswouldberequiredtoproducethecurtainwallcomponents.Thisworkedoutto10,000mpermonth.WSLsubmittedthathenceitsrepresentationofthe10,000mrequirementwasmeanttobegenerallyindicativeofitsapproximatecurtainwallproductioncapacity.

31WSLfurthersubmittedthatthe10,000mcriterionhadtobeevaluatedagainsttheprojectscurtainwallrequirementsastheystoodatthetimeoftender.Itallegedthat,atthattime,therewasnorequirementforaluminiumcladdingforBlocks1,3and4instead,onlygranitepanelswererequiredforBlocks1and4.TheprojectsquantitysummaryshowedthatatthetimeoftendertherewasnorequirementforanyaluminiumcladdingforBlocks1,3and4.Asthe10,000mcriterionwasbasedontheareaofthefaadeforPhases1,3and4,thepartiescouldnothavecontemplatedtheinclusionofaluminiumcladdingaspartofthiscriterion.

32WSLalsoreliedonaletterdated12July2002fromCHTongtoJCPL.Inthatletter,thefocuswasonmullionsandtransoms.Also,JCPLdidnotdisagreewithWSLspositionthatthe10,000mwasareferenceonlytothemullionsandtransomsinitsletterofawarddated14June2002.

33WSLthenreferredtovariousspecificationstosupportitsargumentthattherewasacleardistinctionbetweenthetermscurtainwallandexternalwallcladding.

34Lastly,WSLreliedonthecontraproferentemruletoarguethatanydiscrepancyorambiguityshouldberesolvedinitsfavour.

35ItseemstousthatthekeytotheissueraisedbyWSLiswhetherJCPLwasinvitingbidsforacurtainwallonly,ie,withoutthecladdingorasystemcomprisingbothcurtainwallandcladding,andwhetherWLSwasmakingabidfortheformerorthelatter.ThespecificationswhichWSLreliedondidnotassistitssubmissionsbecauseJCPLcouldhaveinvitedbidsforthecurtainwallonlyorforbothcurtainwallandcladding.



36FromthevarioustenderdocumentsandWSLsowntendersubmission,itiscleartousthatJCPLwasinvitingbidsforbothcurtainwallandcladdingandWSLwasmakingabidforsuchasystem.Theawardwasforsuchasystem.

37Secondly,ifWSLwasnotintendingtomakeanyrepresentationastothecladding,howwasitthatitsotherrepresentationslikerepresentations(e)and(g)wereinrespectofa2,000mmetalpanelfabricationplantanda2,000mstonefabricationplant?

38Thirdly,ifJCPLwasnotinvitingbidsforthecladdingfromthisexercise,thentherewouldhavebeenanothertenderexerciseforthecladdingandtheawardofanothercontractforsuchwork.YettherewasnosuggestionatallthatanadditionaltenderexercisehadbeenundertakenbyJCPLorthatanothercontractwasawardedseparatelyforthecladding.

39Asfortheletterdated12July2002fromCHTongtoJCPL,itistruethatitfocusedonmullionsandtransoms.However,itdidnotsaycladdingwasexcluded.

40AsregardsWSLssubmissionthataluminiumcladdingwasinitiallynotrequiredforPhase1,itisourviewthatthatisbesidethepoint.Thespecificationsmentionedbothaluminiumandstonecladding.WhattheOtherCriteriacalledforwasaninhouseproductioncapacityof10,000mforcurtainwallswhich,wefind,includedcladding.Whethersuchacapacitywaseventuallyreallynecessaryisaseparatematter.ThiswasnotacasewhereWSLhadsaidtoJCPL,whensubmittingitstender,thatsuchacapacitywasunnecessarybecauseofthespecificationsforthescopeoftheworkforPhase1.WSLknewthatsuchacapacitywasoneoftheOtherCriteriaandrepresentedithadsuchacapacitywhenitdidnothaveit.

41Accordingly,inourview,theapplicationofthecontraproferentemruledoesnotarise.Forthereasonsstatedabove,weseenoreasontodisturbthetrialjudgesfindingonthisissue.

42Asforrepresentation(f),wemakenofindingonitbecausetherewasadearthofsubmissionsonit.

Representation(e)WSLsinhousefacilitiesincludeda2,000mmetalfabricationplant

43JTCsubmittedthatrepresentation(e)wastomeetitems(n)and(o)oftheOtherCriteria.Item(n)statesthattenderersmusthaveaninhouseproductioncapacityof10,000mpermonth.Item(o)statesthattenderersmusthaveaninhouseproductionfloorareaofatleast2,500m.Itseemsthatrepresentation(e)wasmeanttomeetitem(o)oftheOtherCriteriaalthoughrepresentation(e)hadashortfallinthefloorarearequired.Item(n)oftheOtherCriteriawasalreadyaddressedbyrepresentation(d).

44ThetrialjudgefoundthatWSLsfacilitiescomprisedatwostoreybuildingwithjustover1,000moneachfloor.Hewasalsooftheviewthatthephotographsproducedofthisbuildingputanendtothedebatebecausetheyshowedtheemptyinteriorofthebuildingwithtwomachinesinside.Itwascleartothetrialjudgethatabuildingwhichmightpotentiallybeametalfabricationplantisnotsuchaplant.

45WSLsubmittedthattheinitialamountofmetalpanelsrequiredwassmallandthiswassignificantlyincreasedonlyaftertheawardofthesubcontracttoit.Italsosaidthatithadintendedtofarmoutthemetalfabricationworkinviewofthesmallquantityrequiredinitially.Itfurthersubmittedthatitwouldnottakemorethanfourweekstosetupaworkshopthatcouldundertaketheincreasedmetalpanelfabrication.Itsaidthattherealissuewaswhetheritcouldequipitsplanttoaccommodatetheincreaseinmetalpanelsintimetomeetitsobligations.

46Weareoftheviewthatthesearenotvalidarguments.AtthetimeofWSLstender,WSLdidnotsaythatitcouldcomeupwiththenecessarymetalpanelfabricationfacilityifmorealuminiumpanelswererequired.Neitherdiditsaythatitintendedtofarmoutsuchworkbasedontheinitialquantityofaluminiumpanelsrequired.Itrepresentedthatitsinhousefacilitiesincludeda2,000mmetalpanelfabricationplant.

47WecomenowtoWSLsothersubmissionsonthisrepresentation.WSLsubmittedthatpartofthemetalpanelfabricationwaslocatedatitsPlant4whichJCPLsinspectionteamhaddeclinedtovisitduringJCPLsfirst



visittoWSIPbetween10to14July2002.ItalsosubmittedthatJCPLsteamhadnotphysicallyenteredthemetalfabricationplanttoverifytheequipmentcontainedtherein.

48Wefindtheseothersubmissionsdisingenuous.TheevidenceofOngTiongBengwasthatheandLimLyeHuatdidgotoPlant4buttheyfounditempty.Furthermore,whileitistruethattheydidnotactuallygoin,theywereatthedoorandcouldseeinside.DuringasubsequentvisitbyJTCon3September2002,twomachineswerefoundinside.Asthetrialjudgesaid,whetherthepresenceoftwomachinesmadethebuildingnotvirtuallybareisaquarrelthatneednotbedwelton.

49Wewouldaddthatwhetherthesetwomachineswereinfactessentialpiecesofequipmentcomprisingthebreakpressandpressfold,asallegedbyWSL,isirrelevant.WSLhadrepresentedthattheyhada2,000mmetalpanelfabricationplantandnottwoessentialpiecesofpartofaplant.

50Accordingly,weseenoreasontodisturbthetrialjudgesfindingthatrepresentation(e)wasuntrue.

Representation(g)WSLsinhousefacilitiesincludeda2,000mstonefabricationplant

51Representation(g)wasnotinresponsetoanyparticularitemoftheOtherCriteriaalthoughstonecladdingwasmentionedinthespecifications.Thetrialjudgedidnotmakeanyfindinginrespectofrepresentation(g).

52WSLsubmittedthatitdidhavethestonefabricationplantalthoughthisplantwasnotlocatedatWSIP.AccordingtoCHTong,WSLhadsuchaplantwithinsixandahalfhoursfromWSIP.WSLsubmittedthatthereforeitsrepresentationtoJCPLwassubstantiallyaccurate.

53ItiscleartousfromthephotographicevidenceproducedforJTCandfromWSLsownevidencethatWSLdidnothavetheinhousestonefabricationplantithadrepresented.AsfortheclaimthatWSLhadsuchaplantsixandahalfhoursaway,thiswasabareassertionwhichwedonotaccept.Accordingly,wearealsooftheviewthatrepresentation(g)wasuntrue.

Representation(h)WSLsinhousefacilitiesincludeda1,000mpolyesterpowdercoatingplantandrepresentation(i)WSLsinhousefacilitiesincludedafluorocarboncoatingworkshop

54Item(p)oftheOtherCriteriastatesthattenderersmusthavedirectcontroloverapaintingplant(preferablyinhouse).Clause2.3.9.3(b)(vi)ofthesupplementaryspecificationsreferstoafluorocarboncoatingsystem.Itappearsthatbothrepresentations(h)and(i)overlapaswewillelaboratebelowandthattheyweremeanttomeetitem(p)oftheOtherCriteriareadwithspecificationssuchascl2.3.9.3(b)(vi).

55ThetrialjudgenotedthatJTChadadducedevidencetorebuttherepresentationsaboutapowdercoatingplantandafluorocarboncoatingplantandhefoundthatWSLdidnothavethesefacilities.

56WSLsubmittedthatatthetimeoftender,itdidhaveapowdercoatingfacilitywhichcouldbeusedforfluorocarboncoatingpurposes.Thiscouldbeusedforcarryingouttwocoatfluorocarboncoatingbutnotthethreecoatfluorocarboncoatingrequiredforthefaadeworks.WSLaddedthatthiswasdrawntoJCPLsattentionatameetingon20May2002,ie,beforetheawardofthecontracttoWSLon14June2002.WSLallegedthatitwasonlybyaletterdated21May2002thatJCPLclarifiedthatthecoatingspecificationwasforathreecoatfluorocarbonpaintwithacertainminimumthickness.

57WSLspositionwasthatwhenitlearnedabouttherequirementofthreecoats,itdismantleditsexistingpowdercoatingfacilitytomakewayforanewfluorocarboncoatingfacility.Thedismantlingwasdoneaftertheletterofaward.

58However,thephotographswhichJTCreliedonshowadifferentpicture.Therewasalargeshedwhichwasenclosedonthreesides.Thebeamsoftheshedappearednew.Partsofthegroundinsidetheshedwerecoveredwithgrass.WSLadmitteditdidnothaveanyevidenceofthedismantlingofthepowdercoatingplant.

59Inourview,thephotographsshowanewfacilitywhichwasbeingputup.TheallegedpowdercoatingplantdidnotexistatthetimeofWSLstender.Accordingly,weseenoreasontodisturbthetrialjudgesfindingonthis



issue.Whethertherewasagenuinemisunderstandingornotabouttheneedtohaveafacilityforathreecoatfluorocarbonpaint,thefactisthatWSLmisrepresentedeventheexistenceofapowdercoatingplantinWSIP.Accordingly,itsrepresentationthatithadaninhousefluorocarboncoatingworkshopwasalsountrue.

Representation(j)WSLsinhousefacilitiesincludedatestlaboratoryforcladdingsystems

60Therequirementforteststobecarriedoutisfoundincll4.15.1to4.15.8ofthesupplementaryspecificationsandnotintheevaluationcriteria.Representation(j)wasmeanttomeetthesespecifications.

61ThetrialjudgenotedthatJTChadadducedevidencetorebuttherepresentationofaninhousetestlaboratoryandhefoundthatWSLdidnothavethisfacility.

62WSLsubmittedthatitdidhaveafullycomputerisedtestlaboratoryforcladdingsystemsatthetimeoftender.

63First,itreliedonpurchaserecords.Thepurchaserecordscomprisedinvoices,someinEnglishandsomeinChinese.TheonesinEnglishwereissuedbyM/sJAShillinglaw&Associatesandrelatedtovariousitemsofequipment,astartupfeeandthesubmissionofdrawingsforatestchamberandequipmentatDongguan.Theywereissuedin1998.Inourview,thesedocumentsfallshortofdemonstratingthattherewasafullycomputerisedtestlaboratoryatWSIPatthetimeoftender.

64Indeed,CHTongsaidinhisAffidavitofEvidenceinChiefthattherewasatestchamberandabooth.HesaidhehadexplainedatameetingafteraninspectionduringathirdvisittoChinathatthetestlaboratorywaslocatedinanopenareawithinWSIP.Forsecurityreasons,thetestequipmentsuchastransducers,connectioncordsandcomputerswouldnotbestoredinthetestchamber.Theaircompressorswerestoredinastoreroomatthebackoftheobservationbooth.Hesaidhehadshowntheinspectionteamallthehardwarefixedtothetestchamber.

65WSLalsoreliedontheviewsofitsexpertDrJohnAndrewShillinglawwhostatedinpara6ofhisthirdAffidavitofEvidenceinChiefdated10November2003that[t]heWSLtestfacilityisandwasfullyoperational.

66ItisourviewthatthissentencewastakenoutofcontextbyWSL.Paragraph6oftheaffidavitstates:Irefertoparagraph2.1.12[ofBruceCharlesWymondsreport]PerformanceTestingandparagraph6.10InadequateMockUpTestFacilities.Theparagraph2.1.12isadescriptionofthetestingrequiredtobeexecutedonvarioussamplesofthecurtainwallingforthisproject.InoteallthetestsweretobecarriedoutatatestfacilityinSingapore.Inparagraph6.10MrWymondimpliesthattheWSLtestfacilityinChinawasnotabletobeusedfortestingthecurtainwall.IwouldopinethatitwasneverintendedtobeusedfortheBiopolisProjecttestings.TheWSLtestfacilityisandwasfullyoperational.Alltheequipmentiskeptinthefactoryforsecurityreasons.ThefacilitywasusedtoconductatestforaPalmerTurner(Architects)projectinNovember2002.WSLdonothaveanaeroengineattheirtestfacility.InotethistestwasnotrequiredfortheBiopolisProjecttestregime.[emphasisadded]

67Paragraph6doesnotmakeitclearwhenDrShillinglawmadehisinspection.Inanyevent,hisviewthatWSLstestfacilityinChinawasfullyoperationalwasgiveninthecontextofusingthatfacilityforadifferentprojectinNovember2002.Indeed,hestressedthatitwasneverintendedtobeusedfortheBiopolisProjecttestings.HealsonotedthatsuchtestsweretobecarriedoutinSingapore.However,para11ofaletterdated25April2002fromWSLtoJCPLstatedthat[a]llnecessarymockuptestingswillbecarriedoutinWSLscomputerizedcontrolcurtainwall/claddingtestlaboratoryinWSLsindustrialpark.68Inthecircumstances,wedonotacceptCHTongsexplanationabouthavingtokeepequipmentelsewhereforsecurityreasons.ItiscleartousthatWSLdidnothavethetestfacilityinWSIPfortheBiopolisprojectwhichitrepresenteditdid.Representation(j)wasuntrueandweseenoreasontodisagreewiththetrialjudgesfindingonit.

Whetherthemisrepresentationsweremadefraudulently69ThetrialjudgewasoftheviewthatWSLhadbeenoverlyoptimisticaboutitsfacilities.HedidnotmakeafindingthatWSLwasguiltyoffraudulentmisrepresentations.However,itshouldberememberedthatthetrialjudgefoundonlythatrepresentations(d),(e),(h),(i)and(j)wereuntrue.Hedidnotmakeanyfindingonrepresentations(b),(c),(f)and(g).70Outoftheremainingninerepresentationswhicharestillinissuebeforeus,ie,afterexcludingrepresentation(a),wehavefoundthateightoftherepresentationswereuntrue.Asmentionedabove,wemakenofindingasregardsrepresentation(f).Evenifweweretoconfineourselvestotherepresentationswhichthetrial



findingasregardsrepresentation(f).Evenifweweretoconfineourselvestotherepresentationswhichthetrialjudgefoundtobeuntrue,itseemstous,withrespect,thatthetrialjudgewasbeingeuphemistic.ItiscleartousthatWSLmadetheserepresentationsknowingthattheywereuntrue.Theyweremadefraudulently.WearealsooftheviewthatWSLmadetheotheruntruerepresentations,ie,representations(b),(c)and(g),fraudulently.

WhetherJTCwasinducedbyWSLsmisrepresentationstoawardthecontractforfaadeworkstoWSL

71ThenextissueiswhetherJTCwasinducedbyWSLsmisrepresentationstoawardthecontractforfaadeworkstoWSL.Asmentionedabove,JTCwasatallmaterialtimesassistedbyJCPL.

72JTCreliedonPanatronPteLtdvLeeCheowLee[2001]3SLR405(Panatron).Inthatcase,LPTheanJAfoundthecaseofJEBFastenersvMarks,Bloom&Co[1983]1AllER583instructive.Hethensaid,at[23]:

Revertingtothecaseathand,asfoundbythejudge,themisrepresentationshadbeenmadebyPhua,andLeeandYinrespectivelyhadbeeninducedbythemisrepresentationstoinvestinPanatron.Themisrepresentationsneednotbethesoleinducementtothem,solongastheyhadplayedarealandsubstantialpartandoperatedintheirminds,nomatterhowstrongorhowmanyweretheothermatterswhichplayedtheirpartininducingthemtoactandinvestinPanatron.Ifinducementsinthissenseareprovedandtheotheressentialelementsofthetortarealsomadeout,asisthecasehere,thenliabilitywillfollow.[emphasisadded]

TheaboveprinciplewasnotdisputedbyWSL.

73ThetrialjudgenotedthattherewasadistinctionbetweentheitemsundertheCriticalCriteriaandthoseundertheOtherCriteria.HeagreedwithWSLssubmissionthatnoncompliancewithanitemundertheformerwouldhaveendedtheprospectoffurtherevaluationwhereasnoncompliancewithanitemunderthelatterwouldnotruleoutatendererschancesentirely.HealsonotedthattherecouldhavebeenminornoncomplianceundertheOtherCriteria,forexample,ifWSLhadsaidthatithadaprojectmanagerwithexperienceof19yearsandsixmonthsinsteadofthe20yearsexperiencerequired.

74Thetrialjudgewasoftheviewthatinacaselikethepresent,generallyproposalsandcounterproposalswouldbeexchangedandbecometermsofthecontract.Thesemustbesubjecttothelawrelatingtobreachofcontractandnotmisrepresentation.Otherwise,everybreachofsuchacontractinitselfwouldbeanactionablemisrepresentation.He,therefore,tookastricterviewastowhethertherewasmisrepresentationinlawinaconstructioncontract.

75ThetrialjudgealsoconcludedthattherewasnoevidencebeforehimwhichinclinedhimtofindthatJTCwasinducedintoawardingthecontracttoWSLbecauseofoneormoreofWSLsmisrepresentations.Hesaidinhisgroundsofdecision([6]above)at[12]:

Inacontractofthissizeandnature,thereareveryfewconsiderationsthatstandouttobetheonearticlethatclinchesthedeal.Allconditionsandfactorshadtobeweighedandconsideredintotality.Butiftherewereasinglemostimportantiteminthepresentcase,itwouldbethefactthattheplaintiffswasthelowesttenderat$60,000,000[sic].Thenextclosest,butbyalongway,wouldhavebeentherepresentationthattheplaintiffhadexperienceinaprojectofatleast$10,000,000.

76Itisourviewthatthetrialjudgeerredinconcludingthatasthemisrepresentationswouldhavebecomepartofthetermsofthecontract,JTCscauseofactionwasforbreachofcontract.Section1oftheMisrepresentationAct(Cap390,1994RevEd)states:

Whereapersonhasenteredintoacontractafteramisrepresentationhasbeenmadetohim,and(a)themisrepresentationhasbecomeatermofthecontractor(b)thecontracthasbeenperformed,

orboth,then,ifotherwisehewouldbeentitledtorescindthecontractwithoutallegingfraud,heshallbesoentitled,subjecttotheprovisionsofthisAct,notwithstandingthemattersmentionedinparagraphs(a)and(b).

77Itisalsoourviewthatthetrialjudgeerredinconcludingthatbecausetherepresentationswouldhavebecometermsofthecontract,astricterviewshouldbetakenbeforesuchrepresentationsbecomeactionable.

78Further,itisimmaterialinlawwhetheraconstructioncontractorsomeothercontractisinvolved.A



78Further,itisimmaterialinlawwhetheraconstructioncontractorsomeothercontractisinvolved.Aconstructioncontractmay,generallyspeaking,makefindingsofmisrepresentationmoredifficultthan,say,asimplecontracttopurchaseacar.However,thatisadifferentpointfromimposingsomesortofhigherthresholdforconstructioncontracts.79WecomenowtothetrialjudgesviewoftherelativeimportanceoftherequirementsundertheCriticalCriteriaandtheOtherCriteria.WhilewedonotquarrelwiththedistinctionbetweentheimportanceofrequirementsundertheCriticalCriteriaandthoseundertheOtherCriteria,itisourviewthattherequirementsoftheOtherCriteriawerestillimportantalthoughrelativelylessimportantthanthoseoftheCriticalCriteria.80Toelaborate,whileitistruethatfailuretomeetarequirementoftheOtherCriteriawouldnotnecessarilyhavedoomedatender,thiswoulddependonthenatureandtheextentofthefailure.Thetrialjudgegaveanillustrationregardingtherequirementtohavetwoprojectmanagerswithrequisiteexperienceof20years.Heconsideredexperienceof19yearsandsixmonthstobeanunimportantfailure.Howeverthatisnotwhattranspiredhereand,hence,withrespect,theillustrationisnotapt.SurelyatendererlikeWSLknewthatifithadsaiditdidnothaveanyprojectmanagerof20yearsorcloseto20yearsrequisiteexperience,itschancesofsuccesswouldbejeopardised.

81Then,letussupposethatWSLhadalsosaiditdidnothavethefollowinginrespectofsomeotherrequirementsundertheOtherCriteria:

(a)adesignmanagerwith20yearsrequisiteexperience

(b)aninhouseproductioncapacityof10,000mpermonthforcurtainwalls(andcladding)

(c)aninhouse3,000mwindowandcurtainwallplant

(d)aninhouse2,500mmetalpanelfabricationplant

(e)apaintingplant(preferablyinhouse).

WhatwouldWSLschanceshavebeen?WeaccepttheevidenceandsubmissionforJTCthatitwouldbeadistortionofthetenderprocessiftendererswerenotcompetingonalevelplayingfieldandatendererwasabletosubmitapricelowerthanothertenderersduetoitsnoncomplianttenderwithoutrevealingthenoncompliance.Therefore,itseemstousthatwiththeaboveadditionalomissions,WSLwouldnothaveevengotitsfootinthedoornotwithstandingitspriceunlesstheevidencedemonstratesthatJCPLdidnotinfactconsideralltheserequirementsimportantorhadwaivedthem.

82Wenowcomebacktothetrialjudgesfindingaboutthedominanceofthepricefactor.WSLsoughttosupportthisfindingbyrelyingonotherevidencefromJCPL.However,itseemstousthatsuchevidencedidnotgoasfarasWSLwasadvocating.WeneedreferonlytosomeoftheevidencewhichWSLreliedon.

83Forexample,WSLreliedonanemaildated28May2002fromNickChangtoSpencerLimwhichsaid:

Spencer,Myanalysisofourrecommendedcontractorsisverymuchinlinewithtiongbengemailtoyou.Thisisbecausewehavespentsomanyhoursdebatingoverprosandconsofeachtenderers.Theunderlyingfactisthatwehave$54M[to]workon,thechoiceisapparentwhenwehavenostronggroundtorejectWS.Perhaps,theonlythingwecouldlearnfromthissagaistohaveaclose/invitedtenderatfirst.WorkingwithWSmeanswehavetodevotemorehoursandmanpowertomakesuretheyhavenotslipofftheirprogram.WSteamisnew,theirlearningcurvetimeislonger,theymayfacedifficultydealingwithSC.thisarerealandpracticalproblemthatwillerodetheessenceoftime.

Thewaytomakesurethattheydeliverwhattheypromisedistodeployadditionalsitestafftowatchovertheirteamconsistently.Weliketodiscussfurtherwhetherwecanhaveacontingencysum(say5%ontopofthe$4.5M)todeploymoreofoursitestafftomediatethetensionbetweenSCandWS.

Inconclusion,wecannotguaranteeWSperformance,wealsocannotjustjudgetheirperformancemerelyduringtenderevaluation.WhatJCPLcancommitisthatwewillputforwardthebestteamtocompletethisprojectintime.

Thanks

NickChang



[emphasisadded]

84Inourview,thisemaildoesnotsupportWSLscontention.Onthecontrary,itisagainstsuchacontention.ItshowsthatNickChangconsideredWSLspricetobeimportantbecausehedidnotthinktherewasanystrongreasontorejectWSLstender.

85AnotherexampleistheevidenceofMaoWheyYing.WSLswrittencasereliedonthefollowingtranscript:

Q:NotaneasypaperasODGmembershavedifferingopinions.Whatarethedifferentopinionsreferredtohere?

A:ItisadifficultpaperinthesensethatthereisreservationaboutWishingStar.Samsungalthoughdidnotstateclearly,exactly,whatiswrongwithWishingStar,hadmanyletterswhichwerealreadysenttoJTC.Butwhenwecheckedthroughallthetendercriteria,WishingStarssubmissionappearedtosatisfyallthetenderevaluationcriteriaandtheyarethelowesttenderprice.Thatiswhywementionitisnotaneasypaper.Ifwearegoingtoknockouteitherway,ifwenominateWishingStar,wehavealittlebitofreservationourselves,basedonthisletter.ButifwedonotrecommendWishingStarandrecommendanybodyelse,especiallyDiethelm,whichismuchhigherprice,wedonothaveenoughevidencetoinformthetenderboardorJTCwhyWishingStarshouldnotbeselected.

Q:Letmebeveryclearaboutthis.Thepricewasaveryimportantfactorcorrect?

A:Yes,asinallgovernmenttenders,thepriceisalwaysoneofthecriteria,aftersatisfyingallthetendercriteriasetoutinthedocument.IfmayIadd?

Q:Yes.

A:Yousee,whenthetenderersatisfiesallthecriteriaassetoutinthetenderdocument,weconsiderthemasbonafidetendersubmission,andifthatisthecase,thennormally,pricewouldbethemostimportantcriteria.

Q:Infact,Iwouldsuggesttoyouherethatpricewastheoverridingcriteria,becausetherewasalreadyabudgetof60millionsetasidebyJTCforthefacadework.Anythingabove60waspracticallyruledoutcorrect?

A:Notnecessarily,becauseatthattime,ifpriceistheonlycriteria,wewouldthen,ifwecannotfindanycontractortosatisfythosewithinthepricerange,wewouldhavetotalktoJTCtoseewhethertherearewaystoincreasethebudget.Ifnot,thenwehavetolookatvaryingthedesigntoreducethecost.

Q:Ultimately,yourteam,JCPLputupatenderrecommendationonthe23rd,ifIrecallcorrectly.A:Yes.Q:Iwillshowittoyoufirst.Thatisfoundinthesamebundleatpages218to223,ifIamnot

mistaken.Maybeyoucouldjusttakealookatittorefreshyourmemory.Thecoverpageisat218,fromMrCheongtoMrMarkKoh,ODG.

A:Yes.Q:CouldIassumethatthiswasthefinaldraft?Weretheredraftsproducedinbetweenthe18thand

thisdate?A:Thiswouldbethisshouldbethefinaldraft,sinceitisalreadysigned.Q:Weretheredraftsproducedinbetweenthatyouhaveseen?A:Icannotrecall.Q:Youcannotrecall?A:Icannotrecall.Q:BecauseifIlookatMrOng'semail,theapproachthenwastoputuptheprosandcons,soto

speak,ofengagingWishingStar,settingoutreservationsabouttheirabilitytoperformandsoonandthenleaveittoJTCtothendecide?

AIfIrecallthatparticularemailthatIsawjustnow,itwasreferringtothefactthatifweweretorecommendanybodyotherthanWishingStar,thenwewouldhavetoputthatintoshowwhywewerenotrecommendingthelowesttenderer.



werenotrecommendingthelowesttenderer.Q:CouldIaskyounowtolookatthetenderrecommendationreportatparagraph3.1.Itisat

page220,yourHonour.Couldyoulookatparagraph3.1.Itsays:TenderinterviewswereconductedbyJCPLandrepresentativesfromODGforthelowestfive

tendererstoassesstheirunderstandingofthedesignintentwhethertheyhavethecapabilitiesandresourcestomeetthetightscheduleofthiscontracttheirperformancesincurrentandpastprojectsandiftheycanmeetthefollowingcriticalcriteria.

[emphasisadded]

86Thereferenceinthelastquestiontopara3.1ofJCPLsrecommendationdoesnotgiveacompletepicture.Paragraph4.1thereofstatesthatWSLsubmittedthelowestbasetenderand[its]submissionhasbeenvettedbyJCPLandwasfoundtocomplywiththetenderrequirements.

87ItseemstousthattheevidenceofMaoWheyYingalsodoesnotsupportWSLscontentionandisagainstit.JCPLwasundertheimpressionthatWSLhadmetalltheevaluationcriteriaandhenceWSLstenderpricebecameveryimportant.

88Itseemstousthatthetrialjudgeomittedtoconsiderotherfactors.First,therewasanevaluationteamwhoserolewastoevaluatethetenders.Itwasnottheretoevaluatethedifferentpriceswhichspokeforthemselves.Itwastheretochecktoseeifthetendererscoulddothejob.TheevaluationteamhadfiveinterviewswithWSL.Inthesecondinterview,whichHarrisonParkalsoattended,MrParknotonlyaskedWSLwhyitstenderpricewassolow,healsoaskedWSLtoreplypointbypointonitsabilitytomeettheevaluationcriteria.ThisWSLdidinitsletterdated1May2002.

89Secondly,aswehavementioned,althoughJCPLsrecommendationtoJTCtoawardthecontracttoWSLdidhighlightthatWSLsbidwasthelowest,therecommendationwasmadeonthepremisethatWSLhadmetallthetenderrequirements.

90Accordingly,weareoftheviewthatthetrialjudgewasplainlywronginhisconclusionaboutthedominanceofthepricefactor.

91Furthermore,inLimBioHiongRogervCityDevelopmentsLtd[1999]4SLR451,MPHRubinJsaidthatinducementmaybeinferredfromthefactthatthepersontowhomtherepresentationwasmadeenteredintothecontractunlesstheinducerprovesthatthatpersoneitherknewthattherepresentationwasfalseordidnotrelyonit.WSLdidnotquarrelwiththisprinciple.InsteaditsubmittedthatJCPLeitherknewofthemisrepresentationsordidnotrelyonthem.

92Asregardsrepresentations(b)and(c)inrespectofthetwoprojectmanagersandachiefdesignmanagerwhowereallegedtohavetherequisiteexperience,WSLsubmittedthatJCPLwasindifferenttothesecriteria.WSLsaidthatithadsubmittedaprojectorganisationcharttotheevaluationteamandfromthisitshouldhavebeenclearthatWSLwasnotintendingtodeploytheexactnumberofpersonnelasrequiredundertheOtherCriteria.Italsoreliedonaletterdated10May2002fromWSLwhichitsaidshowedthatWSLwasproposingtodesignateonlyoneprojectmanagerandnottwo.YettherewasnofollowupbyJCPLonthis.

93Uponconsiderationoftheletterdated10May2002,wenotethatitdoesnotspecificallysayoneoraprojectmanager.True,itreferstoprojectmanagerinthesingularbutthiscouldhavebeenoverlookedbyJCPLasNickChangwassuggesting.Inanyevent,areferencetoasingleprojectmanagerisquitedifferentfromsayingthattherewouldnotbeanyprojectmanager.Accordingly,wedonotseehowthisevidencedemonstratesthatitwasacceptableforWSLnottohaveanyprojectmanagerwiththerequisiteexperience.

94Asregardsachiefdesignmanager,WSLsubmittedthatinitsletterdated17May2002ithadsaidthatthisrolewouldbefilledbyMrTongandMrTongscurriculumvitaewasprovidedtoJCPLuponrequest.However,WSLdidnotsaythatMrTongscurriculumvitaedisclosedthathehadlessthan20yearsrelevantexperience.Inaddition,thissubmissionofWSLcontradicteditsothersubmission,mentionedabove,thatitschiefdesignmanagerwasactuallyAndyChanChungShing.WeareoftheviewthatthesesubmissionsdemonstrateWSLs



duplicity.Indeed,insteadofdemonstratingthatJCPLwaspreparedtoacceptthenonexistenceofachiefdesignmanagerwiththerequisiteexperience,WSLssubmissionsonthisissuedemonstratethecontrary.

95Asregardsrepresentation(d)inrespectofaninhouseproductioncapacityof10,000mpermonthforcurtainwalls(andcladding),WSLsaidthatJCPLhadaskedforfurtherinformationofsuchproductioncapacityinameetingon20May2002butdidnotfollowuponthispriortotheawardofthecontract.WSLsubmittedthatthereasonableinferencewasthatJCPLconsideredsuchaproductioncapacitytobeimmaterial.

96Wedonotacceptthissubmission.Thecontractwasnotasimpleone.ThereweremanyrequirementsandtherewassomeurgencyastheBiopolisprojectwasonafasttrack.Moreover,itseemstousthattheomissiontofollowupwasbecauseJCPLwasnotuptothemark.Aswewillelaboratebelow,JCPLwasalsodeficientinotheraspects.However,itsomissiontofollowuptoobtainmoreinformationonrepresentation(d)didnotmeanthatitconsideredsuchinformationtobeimmaterial.Afterall,ifsuchinformationwereimmaterial,JCPLwouldnothaveevenhaverequestedforitinthefirstplace.

97WSL,however,submittedthatJCPLsinsistenceonWSLhavingcontingencyplansforthisrequirementdemonstratedthattherequirementwasnotmaterial.Wedonotagree.TheneedforcontingencyplanswasincasetheoriginalplansfellthroughbutitdidnotrelieveWSLfromitsobligationtoensurethatithadsomebasisforitsoriginalplans.

98Asregardsrepresentation(h)and(i)inrespectofaninhousepowdercoatingplantandaninhousefluorocarboncoatingworkshop,WSLsubmittedthattherewasnomandatoryrequirementforaninhousepaintingfacilityinthefirstplace,althoughthiswasapreferredrequirement.ItwassufficientifWSLhadhaddirectcontroloverthepaintingfacility.

99However,wenotethatWSLchosetorepresentthatithadtheseinhousefacilities.Havingdoneso,itdoesnotlieinthemouthofWSLtoarguethatthisrepresentationdidnotinduceJCPLtoawarditthecontract.Inourview,therewasinducement.

100IfWSLhadshownthatatallmaterialtimesitdidinfacthavedirectcontroloverapaintingfacilitywhichwasnotitsown,thatmightwellhaveaffectedtherelieftobegrantedtoJTCforthismisrepresentation.However,thatisadifferentpoint.Inanyevent,WSLdidnotdemonstratethatithaddirectcontrolofsuchafacility.

101WSLalsohadanotherargument.Asmentionedabove,WSLsaidithadinformedJCPLoftheunsuitabilityofitsinhousepaintingfacilityinameetingon20May2002.WSLsuggestedthatJCPLhadacceptedthisclarificationbutitsowninternalmemorandumoftheminutesofthatmeetingshowedthatWSLwasrequiredtosubmitanexplanationforthis,meaningawrittenexplanation.Inourview,thisdemonstratestheoppositeofwhatWSLwasadvocating.JCPLhadnotsimplyacceptedWSLsoralexplanationandhadrequiredawrittenexplanation.However,WSLsubmittedthatJCPLsomissiontofollowuponthispointbeforeawardingthecontractdemonstratedthatthisrepresentationwasnotmaterialorhadnotinducedJCPLtoawardthecontracttoit.Forthesamereasonsasmentionedaboveinthecontextofrepresentation(d),wedonotacceptthissubmissionofWSL.Ifrepresentations(h)and(i)wereimmaterial,JCPLwouldnothaveaskedWSLtosubmitanexplanationinthefirstplace.

102WSLreliedonyetotherargumentstorefutetheclaimthattherewasinducement.ItsubmittedthatalthoughtherewasarequirementintheevaluationcriteriathatthetenderersconstructionprogrammewastoconformwithSamsungsmasterprogrammeandalthoughthiswasconsideredbyNickChangtobeasimportantasanyoftherequirementsundertheCriticalCriteria,JCPLneverthelessawardedthecontracttoWSLeventhoughWSLsconstructionprogrammedidnotconformwithSamsungs.

103Secondly,WSLwastosubmitsamplesofspiders,framesandlouvresby3June2002andtofinaliseitsappointmentofitsProfessionalEngineer,DesignandFaadeConsultantby28May2002.ItdidnotdosoandyetNickChangomittedtoreportthesebreaches.

104WSLsubmittedthatsuchconductwasreflectiveofJCPLsoverallattitudeandthatsuchconductalso



supporteditsargumentaboutnoninducement.

105WeareoftheviewthatsuchconductdoesnotaddanythingmoretoWSLsothersubmissions.Atmost,suchconductagainillustratesJCPLsdeficiencyincarryingoutitsresponsibilitiesbutthatisdifferentfromnoninducement.

106WSLfurthersubmittedthatwhatJCPLhadreliedonwasWSLsgradingofL6undertheBuildingControlAuthorityssystemofregistration.L6wasthehighestcategoryoffaadecontractors.JCPLacceptedthatithadplacedrelianceonthisgradingforWSL.However,inourview,itdoesnotfollowthatJCPLdidnotplacerelianceonanyrepresentationfromWSL.

107Therewasonemoreargumentontheissueofinducement.WSLsubmittedthatbecauseJTChadJCPLtoevaluateWSLsrepresentations,JTChadnotreliedontherepresentationsbuthadinsteadreliedonJCPLsevaluation.WSLreliedontheHouseofLordsdecisioninAttwoodvSmall[18351842]AllERRep258(Attwood).

108InAttwood,certainrepresentationsweremadebyMrAttwoodabouttheproductivepowerandnatureofthepropertyhewassellingtodirectorsoftheintendedpurchaser.ThepurchaserwasagreeabletopurchasingthepropertyonthebasisthatMrAttwoodwouldaffordeveryfacilitytoitsagentstoascertainthecorrectnessoftherepresentations.Aftertheagentshadmadeinquiries,thepurchasewascompletedandthepurchasertookpossessionoftheproperty.Aboutsixmonthsafterpossessionandafterworkingtheproperty,thepurchasersoughttorescindthecontractonthegroundoffraud.TheHouseofLordsbyamajorityofthreetotwoconcludedthatthepurchaserhadnotreliedontherepresentationssincethepurchaserhaddecidedtohavetherepresentationsinvestigatedforitself.

109Weacceptthattherearepassagesinthejudgmentsofthemajority,ie,LordCottenhamLC,theEarlofDevonandLordBrougham,whichseemtosupportthepropositionadvocatedbyWSL.However,inthesubsequentcaseofRedgravevHurd(1881)20ChD1,theCourtofAppealexpresslydisavowedsuchaproposition.

110Inthatcase,MrRedgrave,asolicitor,hadpublishedanadvertisementabouthispracticetosolicitanoffertopurchasehissuburbanresidence.MrHurdrespondedtotheadvertisementandhadaninterviewwithMrRedgrave.Inthatinterview,MrRedgravesaidhispracticebroughtinacertainamountofrevenueayear.Subsequently,MrHurdmadefurtherinquiryofMrRedgraveoftheamountofbusinessdoneforthelastthreeyears.MrRedgraveproducedthreesummariesshowingrevenuewhichwaslessthanwhathehadrepresented.MrHurdmadeafurtherinquiryandhereceivedsomepapersfromMrRedgraveinresponse.Itisunnecessarytogointodetailsofthat.Shortlyafterwards,MrHurdsignedanagreementtopurchasetheresidencebuttheagreementmadenoreferencetothebusinessofthepractice.MrHurdtookpossessionoftheresidencebutrefusedtocompletethepurchasebecauseheallegedthatthebusinesswasworthless.MrRedgravesuedforspecificperformance.Thetrialjudgeallowedtheclaim.However,hisdecisionwasreversedonappeal.

111ThemainjudgmentoftheCourtofAppealwasthatofJesselMR.Itisnecessarythatwequoteextensivelyfromhisjudgment(at1317)asitdealswiththejudgmentsofthemajorityinAttwood:

ThereisanotherpropositionoflawofverygreatimportancewhichIthinkitisnecessaryformetostate,because,withgreatdeferencetotheverylearnedJudgefromwhichthisappealcomes,Ithinkitisnotquiteaccuratelystatedinhisjudgment.Ifamanisinducedtoenterintoacontractbyafalserepresentationitisnotasufficientanswertohimtosay,Ifyouhadusedduediligenceyouwouldhavefoundoutthatthestatementwasuntrue.Youhadthemeansaffordedyouofdiscoveringitsfalsity,anddidnotchoosetoavailyourselfofthem.Itakeittobeasettleddoctrineofequity,notonlyasregardsspecificperformancebutalsoasregardsrescission,thatthisisnotananswerunlessthereissuchdelayasconstitutesadefenceundertheStatuteofLimitations.Nothingcanbeplainer,Itakeit,ontheauthoritiesinequitythanthattheeffectoffalserepresentationisnotgotridofonthegroundthat



thepersontowhomitwasmadehasbeenguiltyofnegligence.Oneofthemostfamiliarinstancesinmoderntimesiswheremenissueaprospectusinwhichtheymakefalsestatementsofthecontractsmadebeforetheformationofacompany,andthensaythatthecontractsthemselvesmaybeinspectedattheofficesofthesolicitors.Ithasalwaysbeenheldthatthosewhoacceptedthosefalsestatementsastruewerenotdeprivedoftheirremedymerelybecausetheyneglectedtogoandlookatthecontracts.Itisnotsufficient,therefore,tosaythatthepurchaserhadtheopportunityofinvestigatingtherealstateofthecase,butdidnotavailhimselfofthatopportunity.IthasbeenapparentlysupposedbythelearnedJudgeintheCourtbelowthatthecaseofAttwoodv.Smallconflictswiththatproposition.Hesaysthis:Heinquiredintoittoacertainextent,andifhedidthatcarelesslyandinefficientlyitishisownfault.AsinAttwoodv.Small,thosedirectorsandagentsofthecompanywhomadeineffectualinquiryintothebusinesswhichwastobesoldtothecompanywereneverthelessheldbytheirinvestigationtohaveboundthecompany,sohere,Ithink,theDefendantwhomadeacursoryinvestigationintothepositionofthingsonthe17thofFebruarymustbetakentohaveacceptedthestatementswhichwereinthosepapers.Ithinkthatthoseremarksareinaccurateinlaw,andarenotborneoutbythecasetowhichthelearnedJudgereferred.OfcoursewhereyouhavefiveLordsgivingindependentreasons,itisverydifficulttoascertainwithaccuracythegrounduponwhichtheHouseofLordsdecided,butIthinkthatinallsuchcasesyoumustonlylookatthejudgmentsofthemajoritywhodecidedthecase,forthereasonstobefoundintheirjudgmentsmustbeeitherwhollyortosomeextentthereasonswhichguidedtheHouseofLordsincomingtotheirconclusion.IthereforeconfinemyselfforthispurposetotheopinionsofthethreeLordswhodecidedthecaseinfavouroftheAppellants.ThefirstopinionisthatofEarlDevon,HisLordshipsays:Thequestionisnotastowaiveroracquiescenceinfraud,butwhetherthepartieshaveusedthatordinarydegreeofvigilanceandcircumspectioninordertoprotectthemselveswhichthelawhasarighttoexpectfromthosewhoapplyforitsaid.InthatsentenceIthinkheisnotquitecorrectasregardsthelaw,butthegroundofhisjudgmentisthis:Thewholecourseoftheproceedingfromitscommencementtoitsclosetendstoshewthatthepurchasersdidnotrelyuponanystatementsmadetothem,butresolvedtoexamineandjudgeforthemselves.Now,thatisagoodgroundifborneoutbytheevidence.ItisadifferentgroundfromthattakenbytheotherLords,butitcannotbeobjectedtoinpointoflaw.

InowturntothejudgmentofLordChancellorCottenham,whosays,Wearenowtryingtwopropositionsbythisevidence,first,whetherfraudwaspractisedand,secondly,whetherthatwhichisallegedasfraud,orratherthefactsfromwhichfraudisinferred,werenotknowntothePlaintiffs,ortothosebywhoseconductandbywhoseknowledgetheymustbeaffectedfromtheverycommencementofthistransaction.IhavesatisfiedmyselfthatboththesepropositionsareinfavouroftheDefendantthatis,hefoundnotonlynofraud,buthealsofoundthatallthematerialfactswereknownbeforetheyenteredintothecontract.Idonotfindthefactoffraudmadeout,althoughundoubtedlyitmaybesupposedthatthebargainwasaverygoodoneforMr.Attwood.Thatisnotthematterinquestion,butthatthefraudalleged,whichalonecanberesortedtoforthepurposeofsupportingthePlaintiffscase,isnotmadeoutinfact,andthatthecircumstancesfromwhichthatfraudisendeavouredtobeinferredbythePlaintiffs,are,inmyopinion,provedtohavebeenknowntothemfromthebeginning.Thosearethetwogroundsofhisjudgment,andneitherofthemisanythinglikethepropositiontobefoundinthejudgmentofMr.JusticeFry,thatifcursoryorineffectualattemptsaremadebytheagentsofthepersondefraudedtodiscovertherealfactsheloseshisrighttocomplainofthefraud.ThereisasentenceinEarlDevonsjudgmenttothateffect,butnotinLordCottenhams.

TheonlyotherjudgmentwhichwasinfavouroftheappealwasaverylongjudgmentofLordBrougham,whichIshallnotreadthrough,butatp.497wefindhisconclusion:MyLords,whenweapplytothiscasetheprincipleswhichIstatedattheoutset,wefindthefactsarewantingwefindthereisnomisrepresentationwhichgaverisetothecontract(thatis,heconcurswith



LordCottenhamthatthereisnofraudthatisthefirstground).Wefindthatthepurchasersdidnotrelyupontherepresentation,butsaid,WewillinquireourselvesthatisthesecondgrounditisthesameasLordDevonsground,andalsowouldbeagoodanswer,thoughitwasnottakenbyLordCottenham.Thenhegoeson:Fromthe6thofJune,1825,downwards,theyconstantlyproceededupontheplanofsatisfyingthemselves,firstbysendingtheiragents,thenbygoingdownthemselves,thenbyinquiringthemselves,thenevenafterwardsbysendingotheragentstoinquire,andthoseagentsreportingthattherepresentationwastrue,andthatthosepartiesfindingbytheirowninquiries(notasMr.JusticeFryputsit,theimperfectinquiriesofagents)thattheagentshadreportedaccurately,andthattherepresentationwascorroboratedbytheresultoftheinquiry,andthatevenwhentheirowninterest,wheneverythinginthecommercialworldwasdown,whenshareswerefalling,whenmoneywasnottobehad,whentheywereaskingtimeforaprolongationofthetermofpaymenttoMr.Attwood,andwhenitwastheirinteresttodiscoveraflawinthecontract,theytheninquireagainandsendanewagenttoinquire,Mr.Foster,anengineer,andtheystatetohimtheirownopiniontobeinfavourofMr.AttwoodsrepresentationsandMr.Foster,inansweraslateasthe26thofApril,lessthanamonthbeforethebillwasputuponthefile,reportsinfavourofMr.Attwoodsrepresentations.Suchbeingthefacts,evenifnoobservationaroseastothedelay,astotheadoptionandaffirmanceofthecontract,purgingitofallobjectionswhichmightbemade,andsupposingthattheyhadcomeintime,insteadofdelayingsomanymonthsthenIaskmyselfthisquestion,InthesecircumstanceshavethesepartiesarighttobereleasedfromtheircontractbytheinterpositionofaCourtofEquity,accordingtothoseprincipleswhichIhavestated?WhenIaskmyselfthatquestionuponwhichalonemyjudgmentmustturn,IamboundtosayNo.SothatthetwogroundstakenbyLordBroughamarethattherewasnomisrepresentation,andthatthepurchasersdidnotrelyontherepresentations.HeagreedinonewithLordCottenhamandintheotherwithLordDevon.ThethreegroundstakenbythethreenobleLords,oneofwhichgroundswastakenbyoneonlyoftheLords,andeachoftheothersbytwo,werethattherewasnofraudthattherewasactualknowledgeofthefactsbeforethecontract,andthatnoreliancewasplacedupontherepresentation.Innoway,asitappearstome,doesthedecision,oranyofthegroundsofdecision,inAttwoodv.Small,supportthepropositionthatitisagooddefencetoanactionforrescissionofacontractonthegroundoffraudthatthemanwhocomestosetasidethecontractinquiredtoacertainextent,butdiditcarelesslyandinefficiently,andwould,ifhehadusedreasonablediligence,havediscoveredthefraud.

112IfthepropositionadvocatedbyWSLwerecorrect,itmeansthatafraudstercanbeasdeceitfulashewishesinhisrepresentationsandyetescapetheconsequencesofhisdeceitiftheinnocentpartychoosestomakehisowninquiryorduediligenceonhisrepresentations.However,iftheinnocentpartychoosesnottomakehisowninquiryorduediligence,hecanrelyonthemisrepresentationstoavoidthecontract.

113Weseenologic,firstly,inpenalisingapartywhohaschosentoactcarefullybutfailed,whetherduetonegligenceorotherwise,todiscoverthefraud.Putinanotherway,suchapropositionwouldencouragetheindolent.Secondly,suchapropositionwouldalsoencouragefraud.

114Itisourviewthatsuchapropositioncannotbevalid.Apersonwhohasmadeafalserepresentationcannotescapeitsconsequencesjustbecausetheinnocentpartyhasmadehisowninquiryorduediligence,unlesstheinnocentpartyhascometolearnofthemisrepresentationbeforeenteringintothecontractordoesnotrelyonthemisrepresentationwhenenteringintothecontract.Thisisallthemoresowhentherepresentationismadefraudulently.Wewouldaddthatitmattersnotwhethertheinquiryorduediligenceisconductedbytheinnocentpartyorhisagentsorboth.Theprincipleisthesame.

115AsforapointmadebythetrialjudgethatJTCandJCPLwerenotunschooledandinexperiencedpartiesinthecontextoftheirbeingawareoftherighttoterminate,wewouldaddthattheexpertiseandexperienceofJTCandJCPLdidnotmeanthattheywerenotinducedbytherepresentations.

116InPanatron([72]supra),LPTheanJAsaid,at[20]and[24]:



Admittedly,bothLeeandYinareexperiencedbusinessmen,andundoubtedlytheymusthavemadetheirownevaluationoftheprospectsofinvestinginPanatron.Inthisrespect,byreasonoftheexposureandexperiencetheyhadhad,theymusthaverelied,interalia,ontheirownexpertiseandknowledgeindecidingwhetherornottoinvestinPanatron.However,itdoesnotfollowthattheycouldnothavebeeninducedbytherepresentationsmadebyPhua.Inthisregard,thejudgefoundasafactthatPhuahadmadetherepresentationstothem,whichtheysaidweremade,andthattheserepresentationswerefalse.Thesefindingswerenotseriouslychallengedorshowntobeplainlyinerror.ThejudgealsofoundthatbothLeeandYinactedontheserepresentationsandtheymadesubstantialinvestmentsinPanatron.Withthesefindings,themostthatcanbesaidonbehalfoftheappellantswasthatbothLeeandYinreliedpartlyontheirownknowledgeandexpertiseandpartlyontherepresentationsmadebyPhuaindecidingtoinvestinPanatron.Inthisevent,theclaimsofLeeandYinwouldstillsucceed.

Thisisenoughtodisposeoftheappeal.However,somethingshouldbesaidabouttheappellantsargumentconcerningtheexercisebyLeeandYinofreasonablediligenceinmakingtheirrespectiveinvestments.ItisarguedonbehalfoftheappellantsthatLeeandYinshouldneverthelessbedeniedsuccess,becausetheyfailedtoexercisereasonablediligencetodiscoverthefalsityofthestatements,somethingtheyshouldhavedone,beingknowledgeableandexperiencedbusinessmen.However,thelawisclear.Allthatisrequiredisrelianceinthesensethatthevictimswereinducedbytherepresentations.Oncethisisproved,itisnodefencethattheyactedincautiouslyandfailedtotakethosestepstoverifythetruthoftherepresentationswhichaprudentmanwouldhavetaken:CentralRlyCoofVenezuelavKisch(1867)LR2HL99.

117Weareoftheviewthatthatiswhatoccurredinthecasebeforeus.JCPLhadreliedpartlyonitsownexpertiseandexperienceandpartlyontherepresentations,althoughJCPLwasalsocertainlyinfluencedbytheprice.Inturn,JTCreliedonJCPL.

118Inthecircumstances,weareoftheviewthatrepresentations(b),(c),(d),(e),(h)and(i)werecalculatedbyWSLtoinduceJTCtoawardthecontracttoit.WealsofindthatalthoughJCPLdidmakeitsownevaluation,itwasalsoinducedbyrepresentations(b),(c),(d),(e),(h)and(i)torecommendtoJTCtoawardthecontracttoWSL.Inthecircumstances,itisunnecessaryforustoventureaviewastowhetherrepresentations(g)and(j),regardingtheinhousestonefabricationplantandinhousetestlaboratoryrespectively,wereadditionalinducements.119Fromwhatwehavesaid,weconsiderrepresentations(b),(c),(d),(e),(h)and(i)tobematerialinthatitcannotbesaidthatnoreasonablepersonwouldhaveconsideredthemunimportant.Accordingly,itisalsounnecessaryforustodecidewhethermaterialityisanessentialingredientinthetortofmisrepresentation,anissueonwhichJTCandWSLdifferedandpresentedargumentsbasedondifferentcasesanddifferenttextbooks.

Electionandaffirmation120ThetrialjudgefoundthatinanyeventJTChadaffirmedthecontractwithWSLafterithadcometoknowofWSLsmisrepresentations.ItisthereforenecessarytoconsiderinsomedetailwhattranspiredaftertheawardofthecontracttoWSLon14June2002.121Aftertheaward,JCPLbecameincreasinglyconcernedoverWSLsoperationalplansastheprojectwasmovingaheadonatighttimeline.Accordingly,JCPLaskedtovisitWSLsfacilitiesatWSIP.Astimeprogressed,JCPLwasalsoconcernedaboutWSLsdelaysintheproductionofshopdrawings.JCPLsfirstvisitwascarriedoutbetween10and14July2002.WewillrefertothisasJCPLsfirstChinatrip.TherepresentativesfromJCPLwhowentonthistripwereOngTiongBeng,NickChang,RamChanderSrandLimLyeHuat.JackKohfromWSLwentalong.CarolWenandCHTongwereapparentlyalreadyinChina.Inaddition,JCPLrequestedHarrisonParktomakethevisitsothathewouldbeabletoseeforhimselfWSLsfacilities.122JCPLsfirstChinatripbeganwithavisiton11July2002tooneofWSLsproposedsuppliersforaluminiumextrusions,FushanJinLanAluminiumCo(JinLan).ItwasdisappointedwithwhatitsawasJinLansplantwasoldanddidnotmeetthestandardsexpectedfortheBiopolis.123ThepartythenproceededtoWSIPatDongguan.Theyarrivedatabout5.00pm.JCPLobservedthattheindustrialparkappearedmuchsmallerthanthe79acresthatwasrepresented.Theindustrialpartoftheparkwasacollectionoffairlyoldandpoorlymaintainedbuildings.Afterashortbriefing,JCPLwasbroughttoaplantwhichJCPLreferredtoasthecurtainwallandwindowplant.Themachinesthereinlookedoldandsmallinscale.Theonlyworkbeingcarriedouttherewaswindowframefabrication.124JCPLwasthenbroughttoanotherplantwhichtheyreferredtoasthecurtainwallplant.Againthemachinesthereinlookedold.TherewasnolargecomputernumericallycontrolledmachinewhichJCPLexpectedtoseefor



thereinlookedold.TherewasnolargecomputernumericallycontrolledmachinewhichJCPLexpectedtoseeforaplantwhichwascarryingoutfaadeworkworth$54mforaworldclassfacility.

125JCPLwasnextbroughttothepowdercoatingplant.Asmentionedearlier,thiswasahugeshed.Atthetimeofthisvisit,ithadanopenroofandoneortwosideswereexposedtotheelements.

126Fourthly,JCPLwasbroughttothemetalpanelfabricationplant.JCPLsaidtherewasnomachineryinside.LimLyeHuatsaidnothingcouldhavepreparedhimforwhathesawthere.OngTiongBengsaiditwasafarce.

127Fifthly,JCPLproceededtothetestlaboratoryforcladdingsystemsbutdidnotseeanyoftherequiredequipmentthere.

128Onthenextday,ie,12July2002,JCPLwasbroughttovisitathirdpartycalledPanAsia.PanAsiahadametalpanelfabricationplant,acoatingplantandatestlaboratory.ItsfacilitiesweremuchmoreimpressivethanJinLansalthoughJCPLconsideredtherewasroomforimprovementofcertainstandards.

129Subsequentlythatday,JCPLwasbroughttovisitaglassfactory.Thenextday,on13July2002,itwasbroughttoseetheShanghaiEastOceanCentre,whichwastheprojectinwhichWSLclaimedithadpreviousrequisiteexperience.

130JCPLsaiditwasinadilemmaasitwasclearthatWSLsfacilitieswereinadequateforitsresponsibilities.Afterthe11July2002visitsandbeforereturningtoSingapore,JCPLhaditsowndiscussions.Itknewitwasindeeptroubleandwaspanicking.ThequestionofterminatingWSLscontractcameupbuttheconsequentialresultindelayingtheBiopolisprojectwasconsideredhumungous.ItconsideredaskingWSLtousesubcontractorswhomJCPLhadmorefaithin.

131Atbreakfastinthemorningof14July2002,TiongBengmentionedtoCarolWenthatsheshouldconsiderhavingthealuminiumcurtainwallcomponentssuppliedbyPanAsia.SheagreedtoconsiderthisalthoughshesaidshehadtoldTiongBengandLyeHuatthatWSLhadalreadysignedacontractwithJinLan.

132AfterJCPLsreturnfromChina,JCPLbriefedJTCataweeklymeetingon16July2002.ApparentlyJCPLdidnotgointodetailsofitsfirstChinatrip.TheimpressionJTCgotwasthatWSLsinhousefacilitieswerenotuptomark.However,JTCwasinformedthatJCPLwastryingtogetWSLtotieupwiththirdpartysupplierstoalleviatetheshortcomingsofWSL.

133MaoWheyYingwasbriefedon17July2002.HerevidencewasthatterminationofWSLscontractwasconsideredbuttheprioritywastoavoiddelay.JCPLstillconsideredthatthebestwayforwardwastofindothersupplierswhomWSLcouldtieupwith.

134On18July2002,atameeting(thefirstcoordinationmeeting),WSLwasrequestedbyJCPLtouseathirdpartysupplierforextrusion,coatingandfabricationallrolledtogether.JCPLagreedtoconsiderapartyknownasNonfemetastheprimarythirdpartysupplierandPanAsiaasthecontingentthirdpartysupplier.135Inthemeantime,on18July2002HarrisonParkwrotetoBGPhilipSu.HedescribedthewholeepisodeofJCPLsfirstChinatripasaruse.Inhisview,itwasobviousthatWSLdidnotcomplywithvariousrequirementsoftheOtherCriteria.HeurgedJTCtotakedrasticactiontoterminateWSLscontract.136NotwithstandingthisletterandalthoughJCPLagreedthatWSLsfacilitieswereinadequate,JCPLspreferencewasstilltogetWSLtousethirdpartysuppliersastheimplicationsofterminationwerehorrendoustoJCPL.MaoWheyYingalsothoughtthatSamsunghadavestedinterestinrecommendingterminationasthatwouldgiveitagroundtorequestanextensionoftimeforcompletionofthemaincontract.137JTChadameetingwithJCPLon20July2002regardingSamsungsletter.JTCsinhouselegalcounselalsoattendedthemeeting.Atthatmeeting,JCPLassuredJTCthattheyhadthingsundercontrolasitwastryingtoworkoutasolutionusingthirdpartysuppliers.JTCsviewthenwasthatterminationandtheneedtohaveanotheropentenderweretootimeconsumingandpreferredJCPLsapproachofusingthirdpartysuppliers.138JTCrepliedtoSamsungsletteron27July2002statingthattheyhadbeenadvisedbyJCPLthatinordertoreplaceWSL,JTCwouldneedobjectiveandsupportingevidencethatWSLwouldnotbeabletoperformthework.JTCsaidtheyunderstoodthatWSLhad,todate,providedacceptableexplanations,plansandtimelines.139Inthemeantime,JCPLmadeasecondtriptoChinabetween25and28July2002.WeshallrefertothistripasJCPLssecondChinatrip.TherepresentativesfromJCPLwereOngTiongBeng,NickChangandLimLyeHuat.WSLwasrepresentedbyCHTongandJackKoh.ThetripwasarrangedbyWSLforJCPLtoassessthefacilitiesofvariouspotentialthirdpartysuppliers,otherthanthosealreadyvisitedduringJCPLsfirstChinatrip.140AfterJCPLssecondChinatrip,therewasasecondcoordinationmeetingon29July2002inSingapore.TheminutesshowthatWSLhadconfirmedthelineupofcertainthirdpartysuppliersproposedbyJCPLfor



140AfterJCPLssecondChinatrip,therewasasecondcoordinationmeetingon29July2002inSingapore.TheminutesshowthatWSLhadconfirmedthelineupofcertainthirdpartysuppliersproposedbyJCPLforvariousworksunderWSLsscopeofworks.JCPLalsorequiredWSLtoacknowledgethatJCPLcould,attheirdiscretion,interveneandengageathirdpartytocompleteanyoutstandingworksshouldWSLsperformancebebelowpar.141On30July2002,CHTongleftforChinatotieuparrangementswiththeproposedthirdpartysuppliers.CHTongstartedtogetquotationsfromtheproposedthirdpartysuppliers.HefoundthemhighandmentionedthisinanemailtoCarolWendated30July2002.142On31July2002,JCPLsentanemailtoWSLtorefertothemeetingon29July2002tostressthatWSLwastogiveanaddedassurancethattheirworkswouldproceedasscheduledandWSLhadagreedthatJTCand/orJCPLand/orSamsungcouldtakeinterveningactionincluding,butnotlimitedto,engagingthirdpartiestopreventfurtherdelay.AdraftofWSLsaddedassurancewasalsoforwardedtoWSL.143Significantly,CHTongsaid,inpara137ofhisAffidavitofEvidenceinChief,thathethengotacallfromCarolWenandhetoldherthatifwedidnotconfirmthesubcontractorsquickly,JCPLwouldterminateus.HeandCarolWendecidedtoreporttoJCPLthatWSLwouldusethirdpartysuppliersinSingaporeknownasCompactandRotol.CarolWenthenspoketoOngTiongBengbutdidnotobtainapprovalforCompactorRotol.144Therewasathirdcoordinationmeetingon1August2002.TherepresentativesofWSLatthismeetingincludedCarolWenandJackKoh.Theminutesofthismeetingshowthat,notwithstandingtheproblemofhighpricesbeingquotedbytheproposedthirdpartysuppliersinChina,CarolWenwastellingJCPLthateitherWSLhadtieduporwouldbeabletotieupwiththeproposedthirdpartysuppliersbycertaindeadlinesbetween7and15August2002.WSLsubmittedthatsuchdatesweresubjecttoacceptableprogrammesandqualityassuranceplans.However,thefactisthatWSLdidnotmanagetotieupwiththesethirdpartysuppliersbythosedeadlinesoratall.145Inthemeantime,on1and3August2002,CHTongsentfaxestoOngTiongBengtocomplainaboutthehighpricesbeingquotedbytheproposedthirdpartysuppliersinChina.146On5August2002,OngTiongBengsentCHTonganemailtosaythatJCPLsfirstChinatripwasamajordisappointmentandJCPLssecondChinatripwastovisittheproposedthirdpartysuppliers.TheemailalsosaidthatitwasforMrTongtostrikeadealwiththethirdpartysuppliers.147OngTiongBengalsosentanemailtoMaoWheyYingthesamedaycomplainingaboutvariousissues,suchastheinabilityofWSLtoprovideaprogrammethatwouldmeetwithSamsungsprogramme,WSLsinabilitytostafftheprojectcomfortably,internalsquabblingamongitsstaff,andWSLsinabilitytolineuptheproposedthirdpartysuppliers.Accordingly,TiongBengconcludedthatitisfutiletopursuefurtherwithWSL.HesaidJCPLwouldhavetosweepWSLasideandforinterveningactiontobetakenwithsuggestedoptions.HoweverMaoWheyYingwasthennotinfavouroftheoptions.148On6August2002,therewasameetingbetweenCarolWenandMaoWheyYing.CarolWensaidthatWSLsfacilitieswereadequatebutMaoWheyYingdidnotagree.149Inthemeantime,alsoon6August2002,JCPLhadinformedJTCaboutdisagreementoverWSLsprogrammeandWSLsdelayintyingupwiththeproposedthirdpartysuppliers.150On10August2002,CHTongwrotetoOngTiongBengtorespondtohisemailof5August2002.CHTongsaidWSLwasneverawarethatJCPLsfirstChinatripwasadisappointment.HealsoassertedthatJCPLssecondChinatripwastovisitaparticularthirdpartysuppliersuggestedbyOngTiongBeng(andnotvariousproposedthirdpartysuppliers).151On12August2002,MaoWheyYingsentanemailtoJTCsSpencerLimtorecommendthateitherWSLbepersuadedtonovateitscontracttoanacceptablecontractoror,failingthat,WSLscontractbeterminated.152On20August2002,JTCinstructedJCPLtoprepareapapersettingoutthebasisforterminatingWSLscontract.ThiswastoenableJTCtoassesswhetherthereweregoodgroundsforthetermination.153On22August2002,OngTiongBengrepliedtoWSLs10August2002letterandsubsequentcorrespondencefromWSL.HisletterreiteratedthatitwasforWSLtodealwiththeproposedthirdpartysuppliers.TheletteralsostressedthatafterJCPLsfirstChinatrip,itwasclearthatWSLsrepresentationsonitstechnicalcapabilitiesandmanufacturingfacilitieswereuntrue.Thepossibilityofusingthirdpartysupplierswasconsideredbutthissolutioncouldnotbeprovidedwithinareasonabletimeoratall.TheletteralsomentionedSamsungsobjectiontoWSLasWSLdidnothavethenecessarytechnicalcompetenceandthatJCPLhadadvisedJTCaccordingly.Inthecircumstances,JCPLdidnotthinkitappropriatetorespondtoWSLsrecentcorrespondence.154WSLssolicitors,M/sHeeThengFong&Co,thenrepliedon24August2002.Inthatletter,theydeniedanymisrepresentation.TheyalsosaidthatJCPLhadinsistedthatWSLengagetheproposedthirdpartysuppliersinChinaandbecauseofhighercosts,WSLhadrecommendedSingaporesuppliersinstead,suchasCompactandRotol.ThesolicitorsgaveJCPLadeadlineof4.00pmon26August2002tosaywhetheritwishedWSLtoproceedwithitscontractandwerenotifiedthattherewasnobasistoterminateWSLscontract.155WSLthenwroteanotherletterdated26August2002directlytoJTCandalsotoJCPL.WSLdeniedanymisrepresentation.WSLalsoallegedthatastheinspectionscarriedoutbyJCPLduringthetwovisitsinJuly2002weredoneaccordingtotightschedules,JCPLwasnotabletoinspectalltheplantsitshouldhaveinspected,thatis:

(a)ametalpanelfabricationplant

(b)acurtainwallplant



(b)acurtainwallplant(c)astonefabricationplant(jointventure)(d)apolyesterpowdercoatingplantand(e)atestlaboratory.

156Furthermore,WSLsletterallegedthattheearlierinspectionswereconductedafterworkinghoursandassuch,photographstakenbyJCPLwouldnothavedisplayedthetruecapabilitiesofWSLsstaffandfacilities.WSLannexeditsownphotographstoitsletterandsaidithadofferedJCPLanindependentassessmenttobedone.ThesamepointaboutthirdpartysuppliersinChinabeinguncooperativeandWSLsrecommendationofCompactandRotolwasreiterated.157InthelightofWSLsclaims,BGSudecidedthatJTCshouldsenditsownteamtoassessWSLsfacilitiesandalsoobtainanobjectiveopinionfromafaadespecialist.TheteamwastobeledbyDrStevenChooKianKoonandincludedSpencerLimandBruceWymond,theindependentfaadespecialist.Withthisinmind,ameetingbetweenJTCandWSLwasorganisedfor2September2002inSingapore.WSLwasrepresentedbyCHTongwhomaintainedWSLspositioninthe26August2002letter.BGSutoldhimthatthebestwaytoresolvethedifferenceswasforJTCitselftoinspectWSIPthenextday,astimewasshort.Thevisitwason3September2002.RepresentativesofJCPLandWSLalsowentalong.158AsfarasJCPLwasconcerned,thisvisitreinforcedwhatithadseenonitsfirstChinatrip.Forexample,althoughbythenthereweretwomachinesinsidethemetalfabricationplantinsteadofanemptyspace,thisdidnotmakeasignificantdifferenceaswehavealludedtoin[48]and[49]supra.ThepowdercoatingplantwasthesameincompleteshedlikestructureJCPLhadseenbuttherewassomeoldmachineryinitandthefullycomputerisedtestlaboratorystilldidnothaveanycomputer.159AsfarasJTCsownrepresentativeswereconcerned,theirobservationsweresimilartothoseofJCPL.Therewasnostonefabricationplant,nopowdercoatingplantorfluorocarboncoatingplant,themachineryinthewindowandcurtainwallplantintwobuildingswasoldandofthemanualtype,andthemetalfabricationplantwasbaresavefortwopiecesofequipment.Therewasnocomputerorelectronicequipmentinthetestlaboratory.160SpencerLimsaidhequeriedCHTongontheprojectmanagersandchiefdesigner.CHTongrepliedhewasoneoftheprojectmanagersandtheotherwasoneMicheleMarzottobutCHTongwasunsurewhetherthispersonhadtherequisite20yearsexperience.Asforthechiefdesigner,MrTongaskedwhetherthisroleandtheroleofprojectmanagercouldbesharedbyoneperson,andthensaidthatMicheleMarzottowasthechiefdesignerandtheotherprojectmanagerwasNicholasWong.Aswehavementionedearlier,thesenameswerenottheoneswhichWSLreliedonattrialasitsprojectmanagersandchiefdesigner.161AfterSpencerLimbriefedBGSuaboutwhathehadlearned,BGSusaiditbecamecleartohimthatWSLhadnotbeensincere.On6September2002,BGSureceivedBruceWymondsreportwhichBGSusaidhighlighteddisturbingaspectsofWSLsfacilities.ItisnotnecessaryforustogointothedetailsofthereportwhichwasalongthelinesofwhatJCPLandJTChadobserved.Inthelightofthesedevelopmentsandafterseekingsolicitorsadvice,BGSuinstructedSpencerLimandtwootherson6September2002toprepareapapertoseektheboardsapprovaltoterminateWSLscontract.Theapprovalwasobtainedon9September2002.162On9September2002,BGSuconveyedtoWSLthedecisiontoterminate.JTCsdecisionwascontainedinaletterofthatdatewhichstatedthatthecontractwasrescindedformisrepresentationandalsoforrepudiationarisingoutofWSLsbreachoffundamentaltermswhichWSLsrepresentationsconstituted.TheletterofterminationalsoreliedonthegroundthatSamsunghadobjectedtoWSLsappointmentastherelevantNSC.AsJTCscasebeforethetrialjudgeandusproceededfirstonthemisrepresentationissue,weneednotexpressaviewontheothergroundsfortermination.163Inthemeantime,from23August2002,JCPLwasinvitingbidsfromcertaincontractorstobesubmittedforthefaadeworksincaseWSLscontractwasterminated.SubsequenttoJTCsterminationofWSLscontracton9September2002,anewcontractforthefaadeworkswasawardedtoanotherNSCforthehighersumof$61,810,000.Thecontractwasnotawardedtothenextlowestbidsubmittedundertheinitialtenderexerciseforreasonswhichweneednotgointohere.164Thetrialjudgewasoftheviewthatbeforetherecouldbeanelection,JTCorJCPLmustfirsthavehadknowledgenotonlyofthefactswhichgaverisetotherighttorescindbutalsooftherighttorescind.HefoundthatJCPLhadbeenawareofboth.Weagreewiththetrialjudgeonthisfindingoffact.ItisobvioustousthatafterJCPLsfirstChinatrip,JCPLwasawareofmanyfactswhichgaverisetotherighttorescindandalsooftherightitself.ItmaybethatJCPLwasunderamisapprehensionastothemechanicsofexercisingtherighttoterminatebutthatisadifferentmatter.Knowledgeofthemechanicsisnotaprerequisitetoelection.Inthecircumstances,itisacademicwhetherknowledgeoftherighttorescindisanessentialingredientofelection.165ThetrialjudgealsofoundthatafterJCPLsfirstChinatrip,JCPLhaddecidedonatwoprongedapproach.ThefirstwastogetWSLtoappointcertainthirdpartysuppliers.ThesecondwastotryandgetSamsungtotakeoverWSLscontract.166Thetrialjudgewasoftheviewthatatthemeetingof20July2002betweenJTCandJCPL,themeetingwascontentwiththeassurancefromOngTiongBengthatthingswereundercontrol.TiongBengwasoftheviewthatbecausetheimplicationsofterminationwerehorrendous,thewayforwardwastosalvagethesituationbygettingWSLtoengagethirdpartysuppliers.Also,JCPLdidnotwanttogiveSamsungareasontoclaimanextensionoftime.Inthesecircumstances,thetrialjudgeconcludedthatJTChadatthattimeweighedallitsoptionsanddecidedagainsttermination.Inhisview,thatwasanelection.167Thetrialjudgealsonotedthefollowing.JTChaddecidedpositivelyinfavouroftheideaofusingthirdpartysuppliers.Inthemeantime,shopdrawingswerebeingsubmittedbyWSLtoJCPLforapprovalandcoordinationmeetingsbetweenWSLandJCPLcontinued.Thetrialjudgereferredtoonemeetingon18July2002whereWSL



meetingsbetweenWSLandJCPLcontinued.Thetrialjudgereferredtoonemeetingon18July2002whereWSLwastoldthatJCPLwouldconsideranyinnovationsproposedbyWSLandthepartiesdiscussedmattersconcerningcoppercladding,glassworkandmanpower.Theminutesofthe18July2002meetingendedwithascheduleforthenextmeeting.Inanearlieremaildated17July2002fromMaoWheyYingtoSpencerLim,shehadinformedhimthatJCPLhadidentifiedcrediblesupplierswhomJCPLwouldgetWSLtoworkwith.168Accordingly,besideshisfindingofnoninducement,thetrialjudgeconcludedthatJTChadelectedtoaffirmthecontractwithWSL.169WSLalsoreliedonJTCswillingnesstohaveWSLusethirdpartysuppliersinChinatoconstituteanelection.WSLsubmittedthatthatwassomethingthatwentbeyondtheexploringofoptions.WSLalsosaidthatithadfacedproblemswithitsnegotiationswiththethirdpartysupplierssuggestedbyJCPLanditthentookthereasonablestepoflookingforothersuitablesuppliersinSingaporelikeCompactandRotol.WSLclaimedthatJCPLdidnotrespondtothesetwopartiesnordidJCPLnotifyJTCoftheseparties.However,WSLdidmentionthesetwopartiestoJTCinitslettertoJTCdated26August2002.170WSLalsoreliedonthefactthatsinceJCPLsfirstChinatrip,therewerevariouscoordinationmeetingsbetweenJCPLandWSLatwhichothermattersinadditiontotheuseofthirdpartysupplierswerediscussed.Secondly,inthemeantime,WSLhadsubmittedshopdrawingsanditsconstructionprogrammetoJCPLforitsapprovalandtherewerediscussionsthereon.Thirdly,WSLhadsubmitteditsfirstprogressclaimon17August2002.TherewerealsodiscussionswithJCPLaboutWSLmovingintoitssiteofficeassoonaspossible.Onthelaw,WSLreliedonMotorOilHellas(Corinth)RefineriesSAvShippingCorporationofIndia(TheKanchenjunga)[1990]lLloydsRep391whereLordGoffofChieveleysaidat398and399:

If,withknowledgeofthefactsgivingrisetotherepudiation,theotherpartytothecontractacts(forexample)inamannerconsistentonlywithtreatingthatcontractasstillalive,heistakeninlawtohaveexercisedhiselectiontoaffirmthecontract.

171ThatpropositionwasnotdisputedbyJTCwhoreferredtothecaseofYukongLineLtdofKoreavRendsburgInvestmentsCorporationofLiberia[1996]2LloydsRep604(YukongLine).ThefactstherearenotrelevantbutMooreBickJcitedanumberofprinciplesontheissueofaffirmationafterreferringtoanarrayofauthorities.Theprinciplesrelevantforpresentpurposesare:

(a)Abindingelectionrequirestheinjuredpartytocommunicatehischoicetotheotherpartyinclearandunequivocalterms.Inparticular,hewillnotbeboundbyaqualifiedorconditionaldecision.(b)Electioncanbeexpressorimpliedandwillbeimpliedwheretheinjuredpartyactsinawaywhichisconsistentonlywithadecisiontokeepthecontractaliveorwhereheexercisesrightswhichwouldonlybeavailabletohimifthecontracthadbeenaffirmed.

172Inaddition,weconsideredthatMooreBickJsstrictureat608wasparticularlypertinent.Hesaid:[T]heCourtshouldnotadoptanundulytechnicalapproachtodecidingwhethertheinjuredpartyhasaffirmedthecontractandshouldnotbewillingtoholdthatthecontracthasbeenaffirmedwithoutveryclearevidencethattheinjuredpartyhasindeedchosentogoonwiththecontractnotwithstandingtheotherpartysrepudiation.Considerationsofthiskindareperhapsmostlikelytoarisewhentheinjuredpartysinitialresponsetotherenunciationofthecontracthasbeentocallontheothertochangehismind,accepthisobligationsandperformthecontract.Thatisoftenthemostnaturalresponseandonewhich,inmyview,theCourtshoulddonothingtodiscourage.Itwouldbehighlyunsatisfactoryif,byrespondinginthatway,theinjuredpartyweretoputhimselfatriskofbeingheldtohaveirrevocablyaffirmedthecontractwhatevertheother'sreactionmightbe,andinmyjudgmenthedoesnotdoso.Thelawdoesnotrequireaninjuredpartytosnatchatarepudiationandhedoesnotautomaticallylosehisrighttotreatthecontractasdischargedmerelybycallingontheothertoreconsiderhispositionandrecognizehisobligations.[emphasisadded]

173JTCsubmittedthatbyallowingWSLtoseektheaidofcertainthirdpartysuppliers,JTCwasexploringitsoptions.Thiswasnotanelection,butifitwas,theelectionwasaconditionalone,ie,theelectionwaseffectiveifWSLcouldanddidengagetheproposedthirdpartysuppliers.174ItisourviewthatJTChad,throughJCPL,madeanelectionrequiringWSLtoengagecertainthirdpartysupplierstomakeupforWSLsinadequateornonexistentfacilities.Thecruxoftheissueonelectioniswhetherthiswasaconditionalelectionoranoutrightelection.AsthetrialjudgeconcludedthattherewasanoutrightelectionbyJTC,hedidnotdealwiththeargumentonconditionalelection.175TheKanchenjungawasnotacaseonconditionalelection,andYukongLinementionedthataqualifiedorconditionaldecisiondidnotresultinabindingelectionwithoutelaboration.JTCreliedontwoothercasestofurtherexplainitssubmissiononconditionalelection.176ThefirstofthetwocaseswasTropicalTradersLimitedvGoonan(1964)111CLR41(TropicalTraders).Inthatcase,acontractforthesaleoflandprovidedforthepurchasepricetobepaidbyinstalments.Clause11ofthecontractprovidedthatifthepurchasersweretodefaultonpayinganymoneypayableunderthecontract,allmoneyspaidbythemwouldbeabsolutelyforfeitedtothevendoranditwouldbelawfulforthevendortorescindthecontract.Clause12providedthattimewastobeoftheessenceofthecontractinallrespects.Thepurchasersmadevariouspaymentslate.Theyalsopaidcontractualinterest.Thelatepaymentswereacceptedbythevendor.However,thefinalpaymentwasalsonotmadeonitsduedate,ie,6January1963.Thenextday,contractualinterestuptotheduedatewastenderedandacceptedbutnottheprincipalsum.Thepurchasers



contractualinterestuptotheduedatewastenderedandacceptedbutnottheprincipalsum.Thepurchasersrepresentativerequestedanextensionoftimeofthreemonthstomakethelastpayment.On8January1963,thepurchasersrepresentativewastoldthatthevendorwasentitledtorescindthecontractbut,inordertogivethepurchasersanopportunityofmakingpayment,thevendorwouldnotexercisethepowertorescinduntil14January1963providedanadditionalsumwaspaidtocoveradditionalinterest,costsandexpenses.Thiswasfollowedbyalettertothesameeffect.Thepurchasersdidnotpayby13January1963andthenextday,thevendorssolicitorsgavenoticeofforfeitureofallmoneyspaidandrescissionofthecontract.Thevendorissuedawritclaimingadeclarationthatthecontractwasrescindedandclaimingpossessionofthelandwhichhadbeengiventothepurchasers.Oneoftheissuesraisedbythepurchaserswasthatthevendorhadwaivedthetermthattimewasoftheessenceofthecontract.177TheHighCourtofAustraliawasoftheviewthatthepreviousacceptanceoflatepaymentdidnotwaivethetermthattimewasoftheessenceofthecontract.Itwasoftheviewthattherealquestionswere,first,whetherthegrantingofanextensionoftimeamountedtoabindingelectionnottorescindfornonpaymenton6January1963and,ifitdid,whetheritwasineffectualtofix13January1963asadateinrespectofwhichtimewasoftheessence.KittoJ,whodeliveredthemainjudgmentoftheHighCourt,referredtoKilmervBritishColumbiaOrchardLandsLtd[1913]AC319andBarclayvMessenger(1874)43LJCh449(Barclay).HestatedthatinFryonSpecificPerformance(Stevens&Sons,6thEd,1921)atpara1126onp523,Barclayisdescribedashavingdecidedthattheletteragreeingtoanextensionoftimewasonlyaqualifiedandconditionalwaiveroftheoriginalstipulation.KittoJwasoftheopinionthatthatwasanaccuratewayofdescribingtheextensionoftimeinthecasebeforehim.Itwasnotofsuchanatureastobejustifiedonlyonthefootingofanelectionmade:seeTropicalTradersat5355.178WSLdidnotquarrelwithTropicalTraders.InsteaditreliedonBreachofContractbyJWCarter(TheLawBookCoLtd,2ndEd,1991),whichstates,atpara1141:

Apromiseewhograntsanindefiniteperiodoftimewillusuallylosetherighttoterminate,atleastwithoutfirstgivingafurthernotice.

179WSLalsoreliedonpara1089ofCarter.Therelevantportionstates:Nowaiverclausesandwithoutprejudiceelections.Promiseescannotavoidthelegalconsequencesofelectiontocontinueperformancebystatingthattheyareactingwithoutprejudice.Thepurposeoftheelectiondoctrineistopreventapartyfromsimultaneouslytakingupinconsistentpositionsandunequivocalwordsorconductdepriveapromiseeoftherighttoterminateperformanceeventhoughsaidtobewithoutprejudicetotheright.However,awithoutprejudicestatementmaybeanindicationthatthepromiseeswordsorconductarenotnecessarilyafinalelection.Forexample,apromiseewhograntsfurthertimeforapromisortoperformanessentialtimestipulationmaymakeitclearthatfailuretoperformbeforetheexpiryofthetimeallowedwillresultintermination.Insuchasituationtheelectioncanbedescribedasaconditionalelection.

180WSLthensubmittedinparas467to469ofitswrittencaseasfollows:Further,thepresentcaseisnotonewhereJTChadimposedconditionsortimelimitsalongtheclearlinescontemplatedinTropicalTraders,nordidtheAppellantsexpresslypreserveitsrighttorescind/terminateifthoseconditionswerenotmet.ThisofcourseisinstarkcontrastwiththesituationinTropicalTraders,anddefeatsalsotheAppellantsrelianceontheYukongLinecasewhichrequiresaqualifiedorconditionaldecisiontonegativeaffirmation.Onthefacts,therewasplainlynoqualificationorconditionsattachedtotheAppellantsaffirmationoftheContract.Itisalsopertinenttonote,aspointedoutinCarter,thatifnotimelimitsarespecifiedforfulfilmentofconditions,therighttoterminatewouldusuallybelost.

181WedonotagreewiththesesubmissionsofWSL.First,theabsenceofanexpressreservationoftherighttorescinddoesnotnecessarilymeanthatelectionhastakenplace.Consequently,theconditionimposedbythepromiseewhichthepromisorhastomeettoavoidrescissionneednotbestatedwithsuchanexpressqualification.182Secondly,Carterdoesnotsaythattheabsenceofatimelimittofulfiltheconditionmeansthattherighttoterminatewillusuallybelost.Hesaysitwillusuallybelostatleastwithoutfirstgivingafurthernotice.Furthermore,itisalsoimportanttorememberthatCartersaysthatthepromiseewouldusually,notinvariably,losetherighttoterminate.183Inthecasebeforeus,itwascleartoWSLthatJCPLwasunhappywithWSLsinadequateornonexistentfacilities,hencethediscussionsonthirdpartysuppliers.True,notimelimitwasgivenforWSLtoengagetheproposedthirdpartysuppliersfromChinabutthiswasnotasituationinwhichWSLwasstillinthemidstofnegotiatingtheirengagementwhenWSLscontractwasterminated.AccordingtoWSLsownposition,asitcouldnotreachagreementwiththeproposedthirdpartysuppliersfromChina,ithadtoproposecertainsuppliersfromSingapore.Inthecircumstances,itwasunnecessaryforJCPLtogiveWSLadeadlinetoappointthethirdpartysuppliersfromChinawhenWSLitselfhadintimatedthatthiswasnotpossible.184Next,WSLsubmittedthatevenifJTCselectionwasconditionaluponWSLsengagementofthirdpartysuppliers,WSLhadnotfailedtomeetthisconditionasitwasJCPLwhichhadfailedtoconsiderWSLsfurther

proposalsaboutthesuppliersi

Date post:	08-Mar-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	hutuguo
View:	12 times
Download:	1 times

Jurong Town Corp v Wishing Star Ltd (No 2)[2005] 3 SLR 283; [2005] SGCA 25

Documents