CWX PTE. LTD. v LIM THIAN HUAT & Anor

Facts

CWX Pte. Ltd., a renovation contractor, agreed to renovate an HDB flat owned by Lim Thian Huat and Yew Shi Wen. It issued a first quotation on 25 March 2022 and a revised one priced at $55,670, which the court found was sent on 30 March 2022, and then on 6 May 2022 a second quotation of $68,070. The owners did not sign any quotation. Within a few days of the second quotation, the parties met at CWX's office; the owners said that CWX's managing director, Wilson, promised there that the final price would be adjusted to about $55,000, which he denied. Works began on or around 10 May 2022 after the owners signed the HDB and BCA application forms, and the owners paid $30,000 on 1 July 2022. On 19 January 2023 CWX invoiced $72,480.

In Magistrate's Court Originating Claim No 8129 of 2023, CWX claimed the balance of $42,480 with contractual interest at 3% per month under the quotations' interest clause. The owners denied owing more, relying on the alleged price cap and alleged defects, objected to the interest at the closing stage, and counterclaimed $14,731.20 for the cost of rectifying defective works. A single joint expert, a chartered building surveyor, inspected the flat on 10 October 2024, and by consent his evidence was admitted without his attending trial.

Issues

1. Whether the contract included a term capping the price at about $55,000.
2. What the terms of the contract were and whether CWX was entitled to the invoiced sum of $72,480.
3. Whether CWX could recover contractual interest at 3% per month.
4. Whether the works were defective and what damages the owners should receive.

Holding

The court allowed the claim in part and the counterclaim. It ordered the owners to pay CWX $38,070 with interest at 3% per month from 27 January 2023, and ordered CWX to pay the owners $14,731.20 with interest at 5.33% per annum from 8 December 2023. Costs were to be fixed if not agreed.

Reasoning

The burden was on the owners to prove the price cap. Their budget was not recorded in any message until long after the invoice, the messages around the meeting made no mention of a discount, and an unsigned quotation was equivocal. Merely telling CWX their budget did not show that CWX agreed to be bound, and the attempt to explain the $30,000 deposit as a share of $55,000 was an after-the-fact calculation with no contemporaneous support.

The owners' closing position on where the terms were found was inconsistent with their pleading that they accepted the second quotation subject to the cap. Objectively, signing the application forms and letting work begin showed acceptance of the second quotation. CWX could not recover the higher invoiced sum because it did not identify or prove any additional works, and Wilson admitted the owners were never asked to approve extra work and first learned of it from the invoice. CWX was therefore entitled to $68,070 less the $30,000 paid.

The owners had not pleaded any objection to the interest clause and had acknowledged it in their defence, which deprived CWX of the chance to lead evidence on whether it was a penalty under Ethoz Capital Ltd v Im8ex Pte Ltd and others [2023] 1 SLR 922. Their bare complaint that the rate was extortionate failed.

The expert's report was detailed, objective and effectively unchallenged; CWX could not attack it after agreeing that he need not attend, and its own evidence was self-serving. The owners did not need to show they would carry out the repairs. The court awarded the owners' pleaded figure, which the expert's slightly higher estimate supported.

From the judgment