4 Safe Mode Pte Ltd enters into a contract with Dilit Pte Ltd under which the

4 safe mode pte ltd enters into a contract with dilit

This preview shows page 16 - 19 out of 41 pages.

4. Safe Mode Pte Ltd enters into a contract with Dilit Pte Ltd under which the latter is to supply 100 computers at Safe Mode Pte Ltd. The delivery date is specified as the 1 st of August. Dilit Pte Ltd comes to deliver the computers two days after that date. Can Safe Mode Pte Ltd reject the computers? From a business/legal perspective, could Safe Mode Pte Ltd have done anything to make the position more clear? Need to look at contract terms whether termination is possible. Was it a serious effect of breach as a result of delivering it late and what has it to do with the computers. If it was a day event for the day and it was late, termination is possible as there’s serious consequence and there’s fundamental breach. Or if Dealit knows the specific reason why safe mode need the computer for. From a business/legal perspective, safe mode could have added express clause to contract to show that termination is possible. Or if delay is to be expected, must state before 5 days.
Image of page 16
Image of page 17
Tutorial 7 1. The contract provides that for every day of delay in completion of a commercial building, damages of $1000 are payable. The completion is delayed by 20 days due to the fault of the contractor. How much can the innocent party claim if the actual loss suffered is $22,000? Do you think generally, it is wise for a business to always have a liquidated damages clause? On the assumption that liquidated damage clause is valid and reasonable which can be compared against the market rate, the innocent party would be able to claim for liquidated damage which amounts to 20k. however, it would not be possible for innocent party to claim for the extra 2k if its claimed under LD clause. Not extravagant and rate is pro-rated, LD clause is valid. Generally, yes it is wise as it helps to set out what is considered as damage incurred, helping to reduce time and expense going to court, encouraging fulfillment of contract. 2. Perfect Timing Pte Ltd agreed to sell a machine to Sosway Pte Ltd at $20000. Delivery was to be on the 1 st . However, when the 1 st came, Perfect Timing Pte Ltd did not supply the machine to Sosway Pte Ltd and repudiated the contract due to various problems on its end. Sosway Pte Ltd had wanted to use the machine for the production process. Thus far it had been using another machine for the production process, but on the eve of the 31 st (the day before the delivery of the new machine), the old machine was sold and delivered to a third party. As a result Sosway Pte Ltd’s production came to a stand still on the 1st. Sosway Pte Ltd managed to get another similar machine from some other source within 21 days of the breac h. (a) What damages can Sosway Pte Ltd claim for? Would matters be different if Perfect timing was aware that old machine was going to be sold to another party? Under the assumption that there was no liquidated clause covering the parties, Sosway may be able to claim for unliquidated damage.
Image of page 18
Image of page 19

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture