Interpretation of Contract Singapore Law

By February 28, 2022 Uncategorized No Comments

Specifically, the Zurich criteria were reformulated by Menon C.J. as follows: “Pursuant to section 94(f) [of the Evidence Act], extrinsic evidence that is relevant and reasonably available to all contracting parties would be admissible and would contribute to the establishment of the relevant context of the contract.” 8.13.16 Damages, whether liquidated or not, are not the only common law remedy. If the breach of contract relates exclusively to an obligation to pay a lump sum of money, damages are generally not available as a remedy. Instead of damages, the court orders that the lump sum due and due be paid. 8.11.5 According to the first category, a contract may be terminated if one exploits its dominant position vis-à-vis another to obtain one`s consent to the contract. The victim has the burden of proof that the perpetrator so dominates the will of the victim that it significantly impairs the victim`s independence of mind. However, it is not necessary to show that such a dominant position is based on a particular relationship between the parties or that the resulting turnover is manifestly unfair to the victim. 8.13.10 As a general rule, the court will quantify the unliquidated damage in such a way that the injured party, to the extent that it is financially sound, is placed in the situation in which it would have found itself if the contract had been fully performed. If the injured party expected to make a profit by reselling goods purchased by the third party, but that profit is not realized due to non-delivery and counterfeiting, the injured party`s “loss of expectation” can be recovered in the form of loss of profits. If the injured party has to incur additional costs in excess of what was provided for under the contract because it has to pay for a replacement delivery of goods or a replacement delivery of goods or a replacement service after the breaching party`s breach of its contractual obligations, these additional costs may be recovered from the injured party as compensation as a form of loss of expectation. As an alternative, an aggrieved party may choose to quantify its harm on the basis of the costs incurred based on the performance of contractual obligations by the other party, rather than on the basis of expectations (unless it is proved that the injured party entered into a bad deal and the cost of the trust would have exceeded the expected benefit). Examples of the relevant context are the entire contract and the entire business documents concluded in connection with the transaction that is the subject of the contract. Arguably, the Zurich criteria are part of the law of evidence and not at the same time or otherwise part of contract law.

As soon as the rules of evidence (whether formulated within the meaning of the Law on Evidence or the Zurich Criteria) are applied to determine whether certain extrinsic evidence is admissible, the Zurich criteria do not reappear in contract law. Rules on the admissibility of extrinsic evidence are not part of contract law. International arbitral tribunals are therefore not necessarily bound by these rules. 8.13.7 Contractual damages shall be awarded to an injured party in the form of a sum of money in compensation for any financial loss suffered as a result of the breach of contract. Breach of contract and non-performance do not always entail liability. The parties may be released from a contract by agreement or by operation of law, or they may argue that there are certain adverse factors that affect the validity of the contract. 8.3.5 This doctrine applies when one party makes an unequivocal promise, whether by word or conduct, that it will not insist on its strict legal rights under the contract, and the other party acts, thereby changing its position on the basis of the promise. The party making the promise may not attempt to enforce these rights if it would be unfair to do so, although these rights may be claimed after reasonable notice to the promiser. The doctrine prevents the application of existing rights, but does not create new grounds for action. The Court of Appeal in denka Advantech Pte Ltd and another against Seraya Energy Pte Ltd and another and other appeals have recently confirmed that the criminal rule remains a good law. In reaffirming this position, it rejected the positions of the United Kingdom (that a lump-sum compensation clause is a penalty only if it is disproportionate to the legitimate interests of the injured party) and Australia (which extended the scope of the sanction to situations that do not involve a breach of contract).59 If one party is wrong about a material contractual clause and the other party (or should) (b) is aware of the error of the first party, the contract can be affected by a unilateral error.

Under Singapore law, claims based on a contract must be invoked within six years from the date on which the plea arose; 47 However, in the event of fraud and error, the limitation period does not begin to run until the applicant has discovered the fraud or error. or could have discovered it with due diligence.48 8.8.3 If the non-performance is not subject to a legal excuse, the contract will be qualified as “breached”. In this context, “lawful excuses” can take the following forms. 8.5.9 The terms of a contract may be divided into intermediate (or nominative) terms, guarantees or conditions. The correct classification is important because it determines whether the contract can be terminated or terminated for breach [see paragraphs 8.8.11 to 8.8.12 below]. 8.8.11 In the event of an actual breach of contract, the injured party may choose to perform the contract for breach if the contractual clause that has been breached is: (a) a “condition”; or (b) an “indeterminate clause”, the breach of which essentially deprives the injured party of any benefit of the contract. In such a case, the injured party may choose to perform the contract for breach. 8.13.1After a breach of a contractual term or if the breach results in the deprivation of substantially all of a party`s contractual advantage, the injured party may terminate the contract. In this case, the aggrieved party and the non-partisan party will be released from all outstanding obligations under the contract. .

Need an Estimate? Contact Us Here!