Bridgeman Pte Ltd v Dukim International Pte Ltd: Breach of Contract for Automotive Diesel Oil Supply
Bridgeman Pte Ltd, a wholesaler of petrochemical products, sued Dukim International Pte Ltd for $576,957.12, representing unpaid amounts for Automotive Diesel Oil (ADO) supplied between August and October 2011. Dukim International Pte Ltd counterclaimed for damages, alleging overcharging by Bridgeman Pte Ltd. The High Court of Singapore, presided over by Justice Lai Siu Chiu, found that Bridgeman Pte Ltd had breached the oral agreement by not charging Dukim International Pte Ltd based on the Singapore Petroleum Company (SPC) ADO price plus an agreed mark-up. The court allowed both the plaintiff's claim and the defendant's counterclaim, awarding interlocutory judgment to Dukim International Pte Ltd with damages to be assessed by the Registrar, subject to a set-off against Bridgeman Pte Ltd's claim.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff on claim and Interlocutory Judgment for Defendant on counterclaim.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Bridgeman Pte Ltd sued Dukim International Pte Ltd for unpaid amounts for Automotive Diesel Oil. The court found a breach of contract and awarded damages to Dukim.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bridgeman Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Claim Allowed | Partial | |
| Dukim International Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Counterclaim Allowed | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Lai Siu Chiu | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Bridgeman Pte Ltd and Dukim International Pte Ltd entered into an oral agreement for the supply of ADO.
- Bridgeman Pte Ltd was to supply and deliver ADO to Dukim International Pte Ltd's customers.
- The plaintiff obtained its supply of ADO directly from the Singapore Petroleum Company.
- Dukim International Pte Ltd alleged that the agreed price was SPC ADO price plus a 5-cent mark-up.
- Bridgeman Pte Ltd claimed the agreed price was its own ADO price plus a service and transportation charge.
- Dukim International Pte Ltd stopped paying Bridgeman Pte Ltd in August 2011.
- Bridgeman Pte Ltd continued to supply ADO until October 2011 despite non-payment.
5. Formal Citations
- Bridgeman Pte Ltd v Dukim International Pte Ltd, Suit No 767 of 2012, [2013] SGHC 220
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Oral agreement entered into between Bridgeman Pte Ltd and Dukim International Pte Ltd for the supply of ADO. | |
| Bridgeman Pte Ltd supplied ADO to Dukim International Pte Ltd based on the SPC ADO price. | |
| Meeting between Bridgeman Pte Ltd and Dukim International Pte Ltd regarding ADO pricing. | |
| Bridgeman Pte Ltd supplied ADO to Dukim International Pte Ltd on the basis of the SPC ADO price plus a fixed mark-up. | |
| Defendant ceased payments to Plaintiff. | |
| Plaintiff stopped supplying ADO to Defendant's customers. | |
| Suit filed in Suit No 767 of 2012. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff breached the contract by not charging the defendant based on the agreed SPC ADO price plus a mark-up.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to adhere to agreed pricing terms
- Damages for Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court held that the defendant was entitled to recover substantial damages based on the difference between the price paid and the SPC ADO price.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Calculation of damages
- Compensatory principle of damages
- Related Cases:
- [1848] 1 Exch 850
- [2001] AC 268
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
- Restitution
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Unjust Enrichment
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Petrochemical
- Oil and Gas
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Midlink Development Pte Ltd v The Stansfield Group Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2004] 4 SLR(R) 258 | Singapore | Cited regarding the admissibility of subsequent conduct in ascertaining contractual terms. |
| Econ Piling Pte Ltd v NCC International AB | High Court | Yes | [2008] SGHC 26 | Singapore | Cited regarding the admissibility of subsequent conduct in ascertaining contractual terms. |
| Sundercan Ltd and another v Salzman Anthony David | High Court | Yes | [2010] SGHC 92 | Singapore | Cited regarding the admissibility of subsequent conduct in ascertaining contractual terms. |
| Zurich Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd v B-Gold Interior Design & Construction Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR(R) 1029 | Singapore | Cited regarding the admissibility of evidence of subsequent conduct in the interpretation of a contract. |
| Robinson v Harman | Court of Exchequer | Yes | (1848) 1 Exch 850 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle of damages for breach of contract, placing the injured party in the same position as if the contract had been performed. |
| Attorney-General v Blake | House of Lords | Yes | [2001] AC 268 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that damages are a substitute for performance, not merely compensation for a physical or monetary loss. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Automotive Diesel Oil
- ADO
- Singapore Petroleum Company
- SPC
- SPC ADO price
- Bridgeman ADO price
- Overcharging
- Mark-up
- Transportation and service charge
15.2 Keywords
- breach of contract
- automotive diesel oil
- ADO
- SPC ADO price
- overcharging
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Contract Dispute
- Sale of Goods
- Pricing Agreements