2,051
edits
Changes
From DMC
no edit summary
'''Summary'''
In this case, the Singapore Court of Appeal rejected the broader approach to determining remoteness of damage for breach of contract put forward by Lord Hoffman in The Achilleas – whether the contract breaker had assumed responsibility for the losses incurred - and set out an analytical framework for deciding questions of remoteness of damage. The Court also approved of Robert Goff J’s statements in The Pegase, and held that it was important not only important to consider what knowledge a contract breaker had or should be taken to have had at the time he entered into the contract, but also important to have regard to the circumstances in which that knowledge had been acquired. On this basis, most of the damages suffered by Out of the Box were too remote to be recoverable from Wanin Industries.
This note has been contributed by Leong Lu Yuan of Ang & Partners, Singapore. Ang & Partners are the International Contributors to this website for Singapore.
7. OOTB’s appeal was dismissed for the following reasons:-
7.1. WI received $12SGD12,360.00 revenue from the Contract, but unknown to WI, OOTB had spent in the region of SGD779,812.30 on advertising and promoting 18.
7.2. Neither OOTB’s intention to market 18 intensively nor OOTB’s business strategy - which would entail greater risks than might have been faced by the average beverage distributor - were not made known to WI. These facts had a direct bearing on the losses that materialized but, without knowledge of these additional facts, WI could not have foreseen these losses and there was no basis upon which WI could fairly be held liable for them.
