BUS307 - Business Law Assignment | Breach Of Contract

Added on -2020-02-24

BUS307 - Business Law Assignment | Breach Of Contract, The present case is based on the provision of breach of contract, misrepresentation of fact, and misstatement. Creative Technology Ltd (CTL) against the acts of Huawei International Pty Ltd. makes the suit. It was stated by CTL that a contract was made between the parties in the year 2009 when Huawei gave its consent to operate WiMAXnetwork on behalf of CTL. In Singapore, the WiMAX network is popular for its mobile network. Creative had demanded to build a network that can provide 1mbpsfor the downlink and asked for the design from Huawei.

| BUS307| 7 pages| 1670 words| 266 views

Trusted by 2+ million users,
1000+ happy students everyday

Showing pages 1 to 3 of 7 pages

Running head: BUSINESS LAWCreative Technology v. Huawei InternationalName of the student:Name of the university:Author note
1BUSINESS LAWDate and Time:16 August 2017. 11.00 a.m. Name of the Court:High Court, SingaporeName of the Judge:Chan Seng OnnNature of the proceeding:Creative Technology Ltd and Another v HuaweiInternational Pte Ltd [2017] SGHC 201Name of the counsel:The counsels for plaintiff were Yim Wing Kuen Jimmy SC,Soo Ziyang, Huang Junjie and for defendant Andre FrancisManiam, Yong Shuyi, Alma and Siew Guowei.Nature of Dispute:The case is based on the principle of anticipatory breach ofcontract, misrepresentation of facts, violation regarding theimplied terms of the contract.Brief summary: The present case is based on the provision of breach of contract, misrepresentation offact and misstatement. Creative Technology Ltd (CTL) against the acts of the HuaweiInternational Pty Ltd. makes the suit. It was stated by CTL that a contract was made inbetween the parties in the year 2009 where Huawei gave its consent to operate WiMAXnetwork on behalf of CTL. In Singapore, WiMAX network is popular for its mobile network.Creative had demanded to build a network that can provide 1mbps for the downlink andasked for the design from Huawei. After getting the proposal, Huawei had chalked out certainplans regarding the same, delivered radio sites ranging from 184 to 360, and sent the costingof the same to Creative. Creative had ordered for 225 radio sites and the project costing wasUS$20m. A supply contract was signed in between Creative and Huawei in the year 2010 andthe dispute arose regarding the annexure 6 of the contract agreement. However, in the year
2BUSINESS LAW2011, problem regarding the connectivity arose in the WiMAX networking system. After aninvestigation made by Creative, it was found that the products delivered by Huawei aredisputed in nature. Huawei had made an inspection too and the result was quite confusing tothem. They to install another 619 radio sites to fix the problem contended it.After hearing the matter, Creative had decided to terminate the contract between them(Chen-Wishart, Loke, & Ong, 2016). The reason showed by Creative is the failure of Huaweito meet the criteria of the contractual agreement. According to the representatives of creative,Huawei had made a breach regarding the contractual terms as they had stated to provide agood quality of product to Creative Technology (Landa, 2014). Another allegation made by the Creative Technology is that Huawei had told to thecompany that 225 radio sites are enough to meet the requirements of the Creative Technologyand those sites will be able to provide a data connection as demanded by CreativeTechnology. The facts are supported by many documents (Thanasegaran, 2016). However,after one year, it has been observed that Huawei failed to meet all the requirements andtherefore, Creative Technology brought an action under Misrepresentation Act againstHuawei. Huawei opposed the fact and told to the court that they had never given anystatement of fact to Creative Technology and according to the principle laid down in TanChin Seng v Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd [2003] 3 SLR (R) 307, they will not be liable for themisrepresentation of fact (Wong, 2014). However, the counsel of Creative Technology that itis important to decide the actionable claim regarding the misstatement by Huawei pointed itout. It was held that the problem regarding the connection of the networks were took placedue to technological problem and Huawei was solely responsible for the fact. Huawei hadfailed to presume that 225 radio sites could not meet the requirements of CreativeTechnology. In Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon [1975] 2 WLR 147, it was held by thecourt that if any of the contractual party have failed to meet the pre-contractual statement, he

Brief, In this case, one Chan Lie Sian was convicted under the Criminal Procedure Code and convicted under section 300 (a) and section 302 of the said Act. It was held by the court that he was involved in the flesh trade and the deceased was a pimp who works for him. Many witnesses stated that the accused was beaten the deceased up badly which caused death to him and the subject matter of the brawl was an amount of money. The witnesses presented by the prosecution worked under the accused and revealed their experience on a fateful day before the court. The accused thought that the deceased had stolen his money and the accused was beating him with an iron rod on his head. The accused had concocted stories before the police officers and paramedics.

Found this document preview useful?

You are reading a preview
Upload your documents to download
or
Become a Desklib member to get accesss

Premium

$45

Q&A Library Access

Chat support

12

Document Unlocks

4

Answer Unlocks

Students who viewed this