Discuss and Explain the Judgment of the High Court and the Court of Appeal in the Case of RBC Properties Pte Ltd v Defu Furniture Pte Ltd [2014] SGCA 62: Business Law Assignment, SMU, Singapore

1^st part

1. Explain Misrepresentation

• Elements of Misrepresentation
• Statement of facts
• False / untrue
• Induce the other parts to enter into a contract
• Reliance by the other party

2.Types of Misrepresentation

– Fraudulent (maker of statement knows is untrue

– Negligent Section 2(1)

– Innocent (maker of the statement reasonable, believe it’s true)

3.Remedies of Misrepresentation

Rescission and Compensation / Damage

Name the case beside the explanation (if any)

Prefer Singapore / England/ Australia published

2^nd part

Discuss and explain the judgment of the High Court and the Court of Appeal in the case of RBC Properties Pte Ltd v Defu Furniture Pte Ltd [2014] SGCA 62.

High Court

1. Facts of the case
2. Legal reasoning*
3. Final Decision (what Defu get)

• Court of Appeal

1) Legal of reasoning the court

2) Final decision*

• Personal views

Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA (delivering the judgment of the court):
Introduction

1. In deciding any given case, it is axiomatic that the court concerned must apply the law to the relevant facts. Whilst the law to be applied is objective and universal, the facts that the law is applied to are varied and specific. Unsurprisingly, therefore, the decision or result of a case is heavily dependent (in the final analysis) on the specific facts concerned.

2 That this is so is demonstrated in no uncertain terms by the main issue that has to be decided in this appeal, which concerns the respondent lessee’s (Defu Furniture Pte Ltd, hereinafter known as “the Respondent”) claim to rescind a lease entered into with the appellant lessor (RBC Properties Pte Ltd, hereinafter known as “the Appellant”) on the grounds of misrepresentation. The lease was in respect of the first story of an industrial building (“the Premises”) and its sole permitted use under the lease was as a furniture showroom.

The misrepresentation complained of was the Appellant’s assurance that all necessary approvals had been obtained for the Premises to be used as a furniture showroom, which, it is argued, was never the case because the Singapore Land Authority (“the SLA”), acting on behalf of the State, had not in fact given its approval for the premises to be so used.

Such a misrepresentation would, of itself, entitle the Respondent to rescind the lease. However, the Respondent claims that it is further entitled, under s 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act (Cap 390, 1994 Rev Ed) (“the Misrepresentation Act”, the provision is hereinafter simply referred to as “s 2(1)”), to damages for losses suffered, because the Appellant did not have (within the meaning of s 2(1)) any reasonable ground to believe that all necessary approvals for the use of the premises as a furniture showroom had been obtained and was therefore liable as if the misrepresentation had been made fraudulently

Background facts

3. The Appellant is the sub-lessee of a five-story industrial building located at 11, Bedok North Avenue 4, known as the Richland Business Centre (“the Property”). The Property was originally developed in 2006 by a company known as RLG Development Pte Ltd (“RLG”), a sister company to the Appellant.

Pursuant to a building agreement dated 16 August 2006 (“the Building Agreement”), RLG leased the plot of land at Bedok North Avenue 4 under a 30-year lease from the President of the Republic of Singapore (in effect, the State). RLG undertook to develop the land in accordance with the relevant conditions of tender and, in particular, to develop it in accordance with its zoning status.