Significance: the General Division of the Singapore High Court in JSD Corp Pte Ltd v Tri-Line Express Pte Ltd  SGHC 227 (coram: Goh Yihan JC) clarified that a claimant’s intention to repair will be a very significant factor in the court’s assessment on whether to grant cost of cure damages in claims of breach of contract or negligent damage to property.
Lee Sieu Kin J granted the claimant damages for breach of contract on the reliance measure even though she submitted only on the expectation measure (for which the evidence adduced did not properly address).
If A buys shares from B, and B made certain warranties to A about the company which turned out to be false, A can sue B for breach of warranty. Separately, if B had made misrepresentations to A to induce A to purchase the shares, A can sue B for misrepresentation in addition to breach of contract.
This may occur for example where it was falsely warranted that the company’s profits were higher than they in fact were, or that certain machinery or property of the company was in good working condition and free of defects.
How is the loss measured in such a scenario?
Significance: Singapore Court of Appeal clarifies the applicability and basis of Wrotham Park damages.
The Singapore Court of Appeal awarded a loss of genetic affinity head of claim in a negligence tort suit for a case of wrongful fertilisation (IVF mix up). This is a novel unprecedented head of claim (possibly worldwide). Although the Court rejected the claim for upkeep costs of the child on public policy grounds, it decided to peg the loss of genetic affinity damages to a percentage of the upkeep costs. Summary of the decision here.
Significance: Singapore Court of Appeal clarifies the legal and conceptual basis for awarding and quantifying damages pursuant to a breach of a lease agreement. Court held that claims for expectation and reliance losses as damages for breach of contract are mutually exclusive.