PT Master Mandiri v Yamazaki Construction: Damages for Breach of Contract & Mitigation of Loss
In PT Master Mandiri v Yamazaki Construction (S) Pte Ltd, the Singapore High Court addressed the assessment of damages for breach of contract. PT Master Mandiri sued Yamazaki Construction for failing to deliver 24 units of heavy machinery, resulting in lost profits from sub-sales. The court considered whether the claimed damages were too remote and whether PT Master Mandiri failed to mitigate their loss. The court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the initial assessment and remitting the case to the registrar to reassess damages specifically for the six machines that could not be delivered.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; case remitted to registrar to assess damages for non-delivery of six machines.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court addressed damages for breach of contract, specifically loss of profit from sub-sales and the duty to mitigate loss.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PT Master Mandiri | Plaintiff | Corporation | Appeal allowed in part | Partial | |
| Yamazaki Construction (S) Pte Ltd | Defendant, Appellant | Corporation | Appeal allowed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Judith Prakash | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Jeffrey Beh | Lee Bon Leong & Co |
| Kelvin Tan | Lee Bon Leong & Co |
| Thomas Lei | Chor Pee & Partners |
4. Facts
- Plaintiffs offered to buy 24 units of heavy machinery from PTKG.
- Defendants agreed to sell the plaintiffs 24 machines for S$438,000.
- Plaintiffs paid 50% of the purchase price (S$219,000).
- Plaintiffs entered into sub-sale contracts for all 24 units.
- Defendants wrote to the plaintiffs to cancel the contract.
- Defendants later offered to deliver 18 units, which the plaintiffs rejected.
- Plaintiffs claimed S$2.6m in damages for loss of profit.
5. Formal Citations
- PT Master Mandiri v Yamazaki Construction (S) Pte Ltd, Suit 155/1999, [2000] SGHC 80
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Plaintiffs sent a fax to PTKG offering to buy 24 units of heavy machinery. | |
| Defendants issued a tax invoice to sell 24 machines to the plaintiffs for S$438,000. | |
| Defendants wrote to the plaintiffs to cancel the contract. | |
| Plaintiffs' solicitors demanded S$2.6m as damages for loss of profit. | |
| Parties met; defendants offered to deliver 18 units, which plaintiffs rejected. | |
| Defendants stated they could only get approval for 18 units. | |
| Plaintiffs' solicitors offered to accept $1m as damages. | |
| Defendants' solicitors denied liability but offered to transfer 18 units. | |
| Defendants' solicitors sent a chaser on the issue of the delivery of the 18 machines. | |
| Defendants' solicitors sent another chaser on the issue of the delivery of the 18 machines. | |
| Plaintiffs' solicitors stated that the plaintiffs were not obliged to take delivery of any machines. | |
| Interlocutory judgment entered against the defendants. | |
| PTKG bought nine machines. | |
| Assessment of damages took place. | |
| Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Remoteness of Damages
- Outcome: The court held that the damages awarded were not too remote because the defendants were probably aware of the plaintiffs' intention to resell the machines, and there was no available market for substitute machines.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Loss of profit from sub-sales
- Contemplation of parties
- Mitigation of Loss
- Outcome: The court held that the plaintiffs failed to mitigate their loss by refusing to accept delivery of 18 machines, and therefore could not recover losses related to those machines.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Reasonable steps to minimize damages
- Refusal to accept partial delivery
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages for breach of contract
- Loss of profit
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hadley v Baxendale | Court of Exchequer | Yes | [1854] 9 Ex 341 | England and Wales | Cited for the basic rule for assessing damages payable to a party injured by a breach of contract. |
| Teck Tai Hardware (S) Pte Ltd v Corten Furniture Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR 244 | Singapore | Defendants relied on this case regarding consequential losses from sub-sales, but the court distinguished it based on specific knowledge of overseas sales. |
| Patrick v Russo-British Grain Export Co | King's Bench Division | Yes | [1927] 2 KB 535 | England and Wales | Cited as authority that loss of profits on sub-sales effected after the original contract can be recovered. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Sale of Goods (Cap 393) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Breach of contract
- Mitigation of loss
- Remoteness of damages
- Sub-sale
- Loss of profit
- Heavy machinery
- Repudiation
- Export permit
15.2 Keywords
- Contract
- Damages
- Breach
- Mitigation
- Construction
- Machinery
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Breach of Contract | 90 |
| Damages | 80 |
| Contract Law | 75 |
| Mitigation of damage | 70 |
| Remoteness of damage | 65 |
| Performance of Contract | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Contract Law
- Damages
- Commercial Law