Hon G v Tan Pei Li

Facts

Hon G and Tan Pei Li, then friends, made an oral agreement around 5 January 2022 for Hon G to sell Ms Tan two pre-owned luxury watches: a Rolex for $28,000, paid at once, and a Hublot for $16,000, payment deferred. The watches were delivered on 6 January 2022. Ms Tan withheld the $16,000, saying the watches were not authentic, and Hon G sued for it in Magistrate Court Originating Claim No 184 of 2022. Ms Tan counterclaimed the $28,000.

Hon G accepted that the watches were sold on the basis that they were authentic, and that the watches an expert examined were counterfeit, but denied they were the watches delivered. Hon G pointed to supposed discrepancies in the expert's reports and claimed Ms Tan's financial difficulties gave her a motive to swap them. The District Judge accepted the expert's evidence, found the swap theory speculative and improbable, and held that Hon G breached the agreement. He dismissed the claim and ordered a refund of $28,000 with interest at 5.33% per annum and costs. He then refused permission to appeal. Hon G applied to the General Division of the High Court for permission (Originating Application No 424 of 2023).

Issues

1. Whether the District Judge made a prima facie error, including on the as-is-where-is basis of sale and on deemed acceptance under s 35 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979.
2. Whether a question of general principle on when a buyer intimates acceptance under s 35(1)(a) had been decided for the first time.

Holding

Tan Siong Thye SJ, in an ex tempore judgment, found no prima facie error and no question of general principle decided for the first time, and dismissed the application for permission to appeal. Costs were to be heard.

Reasoning

The judge applied the test in Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang Hong and another [1997] 2 SLR(R) 862 and agreed with the District Judge throughout, noting that Hon G largely repeated the arguments made below.

The District Judge had considered the as-is-where-is plea and read Hon G's pleadings as an as-is sale subject to authenticity, which Hon G had also pleaded and accepted at trial as a condition for luxury goods. The court would not rewrite those pleadings. Whether Ms Tan was deprived of substantially the whole benefit was a factual question, and for high-value luxury watches authenticity was paramount.

On deemed acceptance, s 35(1) is subject to s 35(2): a buyer is not deemed to accept goods before a reasonable opportunity to examine them for conformity with the contract. A cursory look at the salon on delivery was not such an examination for luxury watches, whose authenticity a layperson cannot readily judge, so the question of intimating acceptance never arose. For the same reason the proposed question of general principle had no bearing on the result. The District Judge's remarks on failure of consideration were obiter, since the counterclaim succeeded on breach of contract.

From the judgment