Analysis of Two Business Law Cases: Creative Tech & Public Prosecutor

This report provides a detailed analysis of two significant cases: Creative Technology Ltd v. Huawei International Pte Ltd and Public Prosecutor v. Chan Lie Sian. The first case focuses on a breach of contract dispute, exploring issues of anticipatory breach, misrepresentation, and violations of implied contract terms, with Creative Technology alleging that Huawei failed to meet contractual obligations regarding a WiMAX network project. The court found Huawei liable for misrepresenting the number of radio sites needed to fulfill the contract. The second case, Public Prosecutor v. Chan Lie Sian, involves a criminal proceeding where the defendant was convicted of murder under the Criminal Procedure Code. The court found the defendant guilty based on evidence of assault and the circumstances surrounding the victim's death. The report highlights the differences and similarities between the civil and criminal cases, examining legal principles, court decisions, and personal observations, offering a comprehensive overview of both legal proceedings.

Running head: BUSINESS LAW
Creative Technology v. Huawei International
Name of the student:
Name of the university:
Author note

1BUSINESS LAW
Date and Time: 16 August 2017. 11.00 a.m.
Name of the Court: High Court, Singapore
Name of the Judge: Chan Seng Onn
Nature of the proceeding: Creative Technology Ltd and Another v Huawei International
Pte Ltd [2017] SGHC 201
Name of the counsel: The counsels for plaintiff were Yim Wing Kuen Jimmy SC,
Soo Ziyang, Huang Junjie and for defendant Andre Francis
Maniam, Yong Shuyi, Alma and Siew Guowei.
Nature of Dispute: The case is based on the principle of anticipatory breach of
contract, misrepresentation of facts, violation regarding the
implied terms of the contract.
Brief summary:
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 the Huawei
International Pty Ltd. makes the suit. It was stated by CTL that a contract was made in
between the parties in the year 2009 where Huawei gave its consent to operate WiMAX
network 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 and
asked for the design from Huawei. After getting the proposal, Huawei had chalked out certain
plans regarding the same, delivered radio sites ranging from 184 to 360, and sent the costing
of the same to Creative. Creative had ordered for 225 radio sites and the project costing was
US$20m. A supply contract was signed in between Creative and Huawei in the year 2010 and
the dispute arose regarding the annexure 6 of the contract agreement. However, in the year

2BUSINESS LAW
2011, problem regarding the connectivity arose in the WiMAX networking system. After an
investigation made by Creative, it was found that the products delivered by Huawei are
disputed in nature. Huawei had made an inspection too and the result was quite confusing to
them. 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 Huawei
to 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 a
good quality of product to Creative Technology (Landa, 2014).
Another allegation made by the Creative Technology is that Huawei had told to the
company that 225 radio sites are enough to meet the requirements of the Creative Technology
and those sites will be able to provide a data connection as demanded by Creative
Technology. 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 and
therefore, Creative Technology brought an action under Misrepresentation Act against
Huawei. Huawei opposed the fact and told to the court that they had never given any
statement of fact to Creative Technology and according to the principle laid down in Tan
Chin Seng v Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd [2003] 3 SLR (R) 307, they will not be liable for the
misrepresentation of fact (Wong, 2014). However, the counsel of Creative Technology that it
is important to decide the actionable claim regarding the misstatement by Huawei pointed it
out. It was held that the problem regarding the connection of the networks were took place
due to technological problem and Huawei was solely responsible for the fact. Huawei had
failed to presume that 225 radio sites could not meet the requirements of Creative
Technology. In Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon [1975] 2 WLR 147, it was held by the
court that if any of the contractual party have failed to meet the pre-contractual statement, he

3BUSINESS LAW
shall be liable for misrepresentation and action should be taken against him (LEE & CHEN,
2016).
It was further observed that Huawei had given a wrong statement to creative
Technology that 225 radio sites can be able to tackle the WiMAX system nationwide. It was
observed on subsequent event that Huawei had made an additional requirement of 619 radio
sites for the same purpose. Therefore, misstatement regarding the Huawei got proved.
Court’s decision:
After hearing and examined all the witnesses and the relevant documents, the court
has dismissed the counter claim made by Huawei. The reason behind the same was that there
was sufficient proof regarding the fact that Huawei had misrepresented the contractual
elements and made a wrong statement regarding the number of radio sites. The court had
imposed certain pecuniary penalties on Huawei and dismissed the claim made by Huawei.
Public Prosecutor v Chan Lie Sian [2017] SGHC 205
Date and Time: 16 August 2017. 11.00 a.m.
Name of the Court: High Court, Singapore
Nature of the proceeding: Public Prosecutor v Chan Lie Sian [2017] SGHC 205
Name of Judge: Hoo Sheau Peng
Nature of Dispute: The case is based on criminal procedure code and the provision
of murder has been enlightened in this case.

4BUSINESS LAW
Brief summary:
In this case, one Chan Lie Sian was convicted under the Criminal Procedure Code and
convicted under section 300 (a) and section 302 (1) 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 it that the accused was beaten the deceased up badly that caused death
to him and the subject matter of the brawl was an amount of money. The witnesses presented
by the prosecution were worked under the accused and reveal their experience on the fateful
day before the court. The accused thought that the deceased had stolen his money and the
accused was beaten him with an iron rod on his head. Accused had concocted stories before
the police officers and paramedics. According to the neurologists, the deceased had several
head and spinal injuries. The forensic pathologist, Dr Wee Keng Poh, assured the same.
Seven days later of the death of the deceased, the accused had surrender himself and
confessed his guilt. During the trial of the case, no action was taken by the accused to support
his innocence.
Court’s decision:
As there was no positive action was taken by the accused, the court was pleased to
held him liable under section 300 (a) of Cr. P. C and delivered judgment under section
302 (1) for the punishment of murder.
Differences:
 The first case is civil in nature, while the second one is criminal in nature.
 The first case had been preceded before the District judges’ court and the
second one is preceded before the Magistrate court.

5BUSINESS LAW
 The penalties in the first case are different from the second case.
 In the first case, provision of the Contract Act was applied and in the second
case, provision of the Criminal Procedure Code has been applied.
Similarities:
 The trial process of both the cases was ended up in the High Court.
 In both the cases, certain penalties were imposed on the guilty party.
 In both the case, the Court interpreted the provisions of the respective law and
the evidence of the witnesses was examined thoroughly.
Personal observation:
Both the cases are helpful to understand the various dimensions of the contractual
breach and provision of the Criminal Code regarding murder. There are a number of cases
cited in both the cases and the essence of such cases is also helpful regarding the issue. The
similarities and differences of the cases helped to analyze the basic facts of the cases and it is
possible to gain knowledge on different provisions of the civil and criminal laws at a time.

6BUSINESS LAW
Reference:
Chen-Wishart, M., Loke, A., & Ong, B. (Eds.). (2016). Studies in the Contract Laws of
Asia: Remedies for Breach of Contract. Oxford University Press.
Grimme, J., Waltermann, R. D., Wetsel, P. H., Knox, J. G., Beaumont, S. M., & Chen, L.
(2013). U.S. Patent Application No. 14/091,844.
Landa, J. T. (2014). A theory of the ethnically homogeneous middleman group: an
institutional alternative to contract law (with an Afterword). Handbook of East Asian
Entrepreneurship, 82.
LEE, P. W., & CHEN, C. C. (2016). Modernising Company Law: The Singapore
Experience. Company and Securities Law Journal, 34(2), 157.
Thanasegaran, H. (2016). Pre-contractual Duty of Disclosure and Misrepresentation. In Good
Faith in Insurance and Takaful Contracts in Malaysia (pp. 47-108). Springer
Singapore.
Wong, R. J. (2014). Judging between Conflicting Expert Evidence--Understanding the
Scientific Method and its Impact on Apprehending Expert Evidence.