Contract

Elements which form a contract: Offer, Acceptance, Consideration, and Intention to create Legal relationships. (pg 54)

S94: Contract have to be in writing. Simple contracts may be made orally or in writing. (Forefront Medical Technology (Pte) Ltd v Modern-
Pak Pte Ltd)

Parol evidence rule: Oral (parol) evidence will not be admitted in court action.

1) Offer: (pg 57)

Offer is defined as the willingness for one party to perform a promise. [Carlill V Carbolic Smoke Ball].
Can be made in writing, orally, or by conduct.

Pre-offers:

Invitations to treat: (pg 59)

Generally, an advertisement is not considered an offer, it is usually viewed as an invitation to treat. [Patridge v Crittenden (1968)]
Court held: It was held that there was no Offer for sales and that, therefore, the relevant legislation was not contravened.
Display of goods and prices in a shop [Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd (1952)]
Court held: The display of goods with prices constituted an invitation to treat and the sale took place at the counter in the presence of
the pharmacist.

Provision of information: (pg 61)

In some instances, a communication may not be an offer but a mere response to a request for information. (Intention to inform or to
offer) [Harvey v Facey (1893)]
Facey responding to Harveys question is not making an offer but a provision of information.
Privy Council held: There was no contract because the second telegraph merely amounted to a provision of information and was not an
offer.

2) Acceptance: (pg 61)

Acceptance maybe made in writing, orally or by conduct. It must be final and unconditional. [Entores Ltd V Miles Far East
Corporation]

General Rule: For an acceptance to be effective, it must be communicated to the offeror (Must be physically received by the offeror or
heard by the offeror).

Receipt Rule: For an acceptance to be effective, it must be communicated to the offeror, and the offeror must be aware that acceptance have
took place.

Determine if both parties agree with Postal rule: If yes, then postal acceptance rule, if not NO.

Exceptions: (pg 63)

Silence: Acceptance may not require any communication is where the parties have agreed that the offerees silence is to be construed as his
acceptance. For this to be effective, both parties must agree to it. [Felthouse V Bindley (1862)]

Court Held: There was no contract between Felthouse and Bindley. Felthouse had no right to impose a condition that a sale contract
would come into existence if Bindley remained silent.

Midlink Development Pte Ltd v The Stansfield Group Pte Ltd (2004)

Singapore High Court Held: There was an effective oral contract between the parties. This was despite the defendants purported
silence (inactivity following the offer) and the absence of a written tenancy agreement. The defendants conduct of paying the
reduced rent showed that a contract exists.

Postal Acceptance Rule: Acceptance can be effective even if not communicated to the offeror is when acceptance is sent through the post.
In such situation, acceptance is effective as soon as the letter is posted, regardless if it reaches the offeror. [Both parties must agree on that
it can be sent by post.] [Adams v Lindsell (1818)]

Court Held: The acceptance was communicated and the contract formed as soon as the plaintiff posted the acceptance letter on 5th
September.

3) Consideration: (Pg 79)

Consideration is an act or forbearance or promise, that requires a promise to move from the promisor to the promisee and vice versa.
[Dunlop V Selfidge)].
Could be exchange of promise, Commercial value in contract

Consideration must move from promise

1
 General rule: For a promise to enforce the promise to enforce the promise, he must show that consideration has moved from him. Tweddle v
Atkinson (1861)

Court held: Tweddle could not enforce the contract between the fathers. First, he was not a party to the contract. Secondly, no
consideration flowed from him.

**Must be sufficient but need not be adequate [value of the promise should be monetised; emotion cannot be monetised] (pg 83)

The law creates a distinction between adequate and sufficient to convey two basic principles. First, the law will not interfere with
the parties bargain. Secondly, the law will not inquire as to the fairness of the consideration as long as parties agree to it willingly.
Lam Hong Leong Aluminium Pte Ltd v Lian Teck Huat Construction Pte Ltd and Another (2003)

Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd (1960) (Giving little value Consideration, sufficient, need not be adequate)

Court held: the consideration included the wrappers even though they were of no value to Nestle. According to Lord Somervell: I think
that the [wrappers] are part of the consideration. They are so described in the offer. It is said that, when received, wrappers are of no
value to Nestle this I would have thought to be irrelevant. A contracting party can stipulate for what consideration he chooses.

Promissory Estoppel (pg 90) [Used as shield but not sword]

The key elements required to establish promissory estoppel are; the parties must have an existing legal relationship, the promise must be
clear, unequivocal and certain, and intended to affect the legal relationship; the promise relied upon the promise and altered his position;
and overall it must be inequitable for the promisor to be allowed to go back on his promise.

1) Clear promise, 2) Reliance upon, and doing it, 3) Suffer damage/loss person who suffer the damage must suffer loss.

Central London Property trust v High Trees House Ltd (1947)

Court Held: The receivers succeeded in their claim on the basis that the 1940 arrangement was intended to be a temporary one du to
the exigencies of the war.

4) Intention to create legal relations (pg 93)

Fourth necessary element in the formation of a contract is the intention to create legal relations. If this intention is absent, then the
promise may not create any binding obligation at all. Lim Koon Park v Yap Jin Meng ryan (2013)

**Social and domestic Agreements (pg 94)

There is a general presumption that such agreements lack the necessary intention to form a contract.
**Balfour v Balfour (1919)
Court Held: The claim failed because the parties did not intend the promise to be legally enforceable.

In Singapore case, De Cruz Andrea Heidi v Gungzhou Yuzhitang Health Products Co Ltd and Others (2003)

Court held: There was no contract between the partes in absence of an intention to create legal relations.

**In other situations, social or domestic agreements may possess the necessary intention. [valid if take extra step to create legal
relations] Merritt v Merritt (1970)

The court held: The husband recorded the following agreement in writing and signed it, shows that was necessary
intention and the wife succeeded in her claim for breach of contract.
Commercial Agreement (pg 95)

There is general presumption that there is the necessary intention to create lehal relations. Edwards v Skyways Ltd (1964)

The court held that, in this particular case, the general presumption of intention in commercial agreements is not rebutted by the use of
the phrase ex gratia to describe the payment. Skyways was legally bound to make the payment.

*Terms (pg 105)

Terms are the promises and undertakings given by each party to the other. They form the substance of a contract and they specify the way in
which contractual obligations are to be performed.

Terms and Representations

Pre-contractual statements can be classified under three categories: Puffs, representations and terms. Puffs are statements which have no legal
effect whatsoever. They tend to be statements which are vague because of imprecision or exaggeration (Advertisement).

2
A representation is a statement made before or at the time a contract is formed concerning some matter relating to the contract. Behn v Burness
(1863)

Terms are statements which form part of a contract. Terms and representations are similar as both are oral or written statements made before a
contract is formed. At this point, their similarity ends. Terms form part of the contract whereas representations do not.

Jet holding ltd and others v Cooper Cameron (Singapore) Pte Ltd and Another, court held that representations cannot in law be elevated to
terms of contract whether expressed or implied. Terms and representations create different rights and obligations for the contracting parties.

When Statement made

Look at point in time which the statement was made. If statement was made closer to the time the contract was finally concluded, it is more
likely to be a term rather than a representation. The rationale is that a long interval between the time the statement is made and the point the
contract is formed suggests that the statement is relatively unimportant. Routledge v McKay (1954)

Court of appeal held: There was a clear and significant interval of one week between the making of the statement and the making of
the contract. This indicates that the statement was not a term of the contract.

Makers emphasis (pg 107)

The greater the emphasis, the more likely the statement is a term.

***Bannerman v White (1861)

White told Bannerman that sulphur was used in growing the hops, Bannerman replied No, and white told Bannerman that he would not even
bother to ask the price if sulphur had been used, simply because brewers refuse to use hops contaminated with sulphur. *

Court Held: Bannermans reply was not intentionally false; however, the query regarding sulphur was significant and Bannermans reply was a
condition which White agreed to buy the hops. The reply was therefore a term of the contract.

Makers Special Knowledge

Where the maker of the statement has, greater knowledge concerning the statement as compared to the other party, it is more likely the statement
is a term. As the other party, will be dependent upon the maker of the statement for its accuracy.

*Oscar Chess Ltd v Williams (1957)

Court held: Williams statement was not a term of contract because William was a private individual, and thus not in position to
guarantee the accuracy of the year of registration given.

*Dick Bentely Productions Ltd v Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd (1965)

Court held: There was a breach of contract because the defendants statement was a term of the contract. The seller in this case is a car
dealer, which led to the buyer to believed his statement and had no way of knowing otherwise. Here, the seller, a motor dealer, was in
a better position to know the true facts regarding the Bentley.

*Invitation to verify statement

If the maker of the statement invited the other party to verify the truth of the statement made, then the statement is more likely to be a
representation. By inviting the other party to conduct an independent assessment, the maker of the statement shows that he does not intend
contractual liability to result from his statement.

**Ecay v Godfrey (1947)

Court held: The suggestion but the seller that the buyer independent survey the boat was material in deciding whether there was any
intention that the statement be a term of the contract. The statement was held to be a representation.

Written statement (pg 55 reinforce)

If the statement was originally made orally and later reduced into writing, then it is more likely to have become a term of the contract.

Express and implied terms

Express term is one which has been expressly agreed between the parties.
Implied term is one which has not been written in the contract, but implied into the contract. Cheah Peng Hock v Luzhou Bio-Chem
Technology Ltd (2013)

3
4
Classification of terms (pg 112)
*Terms: Condition, warranty and innominate term.

Not all terms are equally important, the more important terms tend to generate more serious consequences if they are breached.
Go to the intention, purpose of the contract If important to the contract condition, if not warranty

*Conditions [Reason why parties enter into contract]

Terms which are important, essential or fundamental to the contract. Breach of condition gives the injured part the option to affirm the
contract, keeping it or, alternatively, discharging the contract. In each case, he may also claim damages [can only claim reasonable
cost].

*Warranties

Less important terms and constitute secondary obligations. A breach of warranty does not give the injured party the right to discharge
the contract. The contract remains on foot and the injured party has only a claim in damages. Bettini v Gye (1876)
Court held: The rehearsal clause was not vital to the contract. It was not a condition but a warranty, Bettinis breach of warranty did
not entitle Gye to repudiate the contract. The contract remained on foot but Gye could claim damages for breach of warranty.
Performance: Condition, Rehearsal: Warranty

Innominate terms

Covers terms whose breach can result in trivial consequences or serious consequences. Trivial Warranty, can claim damages.
Serious Conditions, can terminate contract and claim damages.

Hongkong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd (1962)

The plaintiff admitted that it had breached a term of the charter which required the ship to be in every way fitted for ordinary cargo
service.
The court held: The breach was not sufficiently serious to entitle Kawasaki to repudiate the contract. Hence, Kawasaki could only
claim damages.

**Singapore Approach (pg 114)

RDC Concrete Pte Ltd v Sato Kogyo (S) pte ltd v Another Appeal

Singapore Approach focuses on the intention of the parties when deciding on the importance of a term. The intention of the parties
is key in determining whether a term is a condition or warranty.
When considering the legal impact of a breach, it is more important to consider the intention of the parties in respect of such breach
rather than considering the actual consequences of such breach.

Exemption clauses (pg 115)

An exemption clause is a term in contract which seeks to exclude the liability of the party totally by relying on the clause.

**Limitation of liability clause.

Seeks to limit the liability of a party relying on it to a sum specified in the contract.
To mitigate the limitation of the limited liability clause Company usually buy professional insurance. (Rapiscan Asia pte ltd v
Global Container Freight Pte Ltd (2002))

A party who wishes to rely on an exemption clause must establish the four points below:

The clause must be incorporated into the contract;

The Clause, properly construed, must cover the loss or injury which occurred; (state clearly the losses the exemption clause covers)
There must not be any extraordinary facts in the case which prevent the operation of the clause; and (Person can read the exemption
clause)
The clause must not contravene the Unfair Contract Terms Act (UCTA)

1) Incorporation (pg 116)

An exemption clause becomes incorporated into a contract in two ways: Signature or notice.

Signature: Once contract is signed, regardless whether the part read the exemption clause. (LEstrange v Graucob (1934))

5
 Court held: When a document containing contractual terms is signed, then, in absence of fraud... or ... misrepresentation, the party
signing it is bound, it is wholly immaterial whether he has read the document or not.

Notice: The person relying on the exemption clause must show that he gave reasonably sufficient notice of the exemption clause to the
injured party. Whether notice given is reasonably sufficient:

Where the notice is affixed.

Is the document which EC was printed on a type of doc which a reasonable person would have expected to find contractual terms?

(Chapelton v Barry Urban District Council (1940))

Court Held: No reasonable person would expect to find contractual terms on ticket since it would be regarded simply as a receipt for
money paid.

The adequacy of notice

The notice must be given before or at the time the contract was made, there must be reasonable steps taken to bring the notice to the
attention of the injured party, and clear and legible.

(Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd (1971)

Court Held: Contract was formed when Thornton paid his money into the machine which later issued the ticket. For the exemption
clause to be incorporated, there must have been reasonable sufficiency of notice prior to or at this time. A notice on the ticket would be
too late, and notice located at different section of carpark would be too late.

Previous Course of Dealings (pg 119)

If there has been a previous course of dealings between the parties which included an exemption clause, the parties indicated that the
present contract would be bound by the terms of earlier contracts, then the exemption clause may be incorporated through the previous
course of dealings.
Assumed to know the existence of EC, if same contract term, condition

(Henry Kendall & Sons v William Lillico & Sons & Ors).

Court Held: Over the course of time, SAPPA knew that when Grimsdale sold the feed, it did so on the terms it had continuously made
known to SAPPA. The EC formed part of their contracts.

2) Construction
The Clause, properly construed, must cover the loss or injury which occurred. (Emjay Enterprises Pte ltd v Skylift Consolidator (Pte)
Ltd)

Main Purpose Rule

There is a general presumption that the parties do not intend an exemption clause to defeat or be reougant to the main purpos of a
contract. If the party explain the reason/purpose of the contract, then the exemption clause limiting/excluding liability will not be
valid/enforceable.
*If parties clear about purpose of the contract EC is invalid.

(B-Gold Interior Design & Construction Pte Ltd v Zurich Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd (2007))

Court Held: It had been made known to the respondent that the policy was taken out specifically for the appellants renovation contract
with MediaCorp. It would therefore be contrary to all sense of justice and fair play if the EC were allowed to deny the appellant the
very essence of the cover which it had sought under the policy, this would lead to absurdity and courts must intervene to hold such a
clause ineffective.

If did not state (Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd (1980)) **

On appeal, House of Lords unanimously construed the clause as protecting Securicor from the fundamental breach. Lord Wilberforce
stated that: I have no second thoughts that the question whether, and to what extent, an exclusion clause is to be applied to a
fundamental breach, or a breach of a fundamental term, or indeed to any breach of contract, is a matter of construction of the
contracts. Depends on language of the exemption clause.

3) Unusual factors
Consider if there are any unusual factors which may limit the effectiveness of the EC. (Curtis v Chemical Cleaning & Dyeing Co
(1951)
6
Evans (J) & Sons (Portsmouth) Ltd v Andrea Merzario ltd (1976)

If there is misrepresentation, EC is invalid

Court Held: Oral assurance created a collateral contract which neutralised the EC and printed conditions in the written contract.

4) Unfair Contract terms act (pg 123)

Whether the EC complies with UCTA, UCTA requires EC to be reasonable if they are to be valid. EC which are unreasonable will be
invalid, despite the fact that they may be incorporated and well-constructed.
Personal injuries, death cannot be in EC

Personal injuries and other losses

Liability for death or personal injury cannot be excluded at all: S 2(1) UCTA (Xu Jin long v Nian chuan Construction pte ltd (2001))
Liability for other loss or damage, such as financial loss or property damage, can be excluded if the clause is reasonable: S2(2) UCTA

Vitiating Factors which affect enforceability of a contract

Misrepresentation (pg 149)
1) False statement of fact

Misrep is a false statement of fact made by one party to another which induces and is relied upon by the representee to alter his
position and entering into contract with the representor, causing losses to the representee.
Representations are statements, verbal or in writing, which are made prior to a contract being formed.
In claim for misrep, the statement must be one of past of existing fact. Cannot be a mere statement of opinion or a statement of some
likely future event.
Representor had no intention to perform the intention promised Could also be false statement. (Tan Ching Seng & Others v Raffles
Town Club Pte Ltd (No2))
If state opinion, cannot be misrep unless the representor has access to relevant facts.
The general rule is that silence in itself does not amount to a misrep Refer (pg 153) where silence can become misrep

2) Inducement

For the false statement to be a misrep, the statement must induce the representee to enter into the contract. As long as it is one of the
inducing causes, it is immaterial that it is not the sole inducing cause. (Edgington v Fitzmaurice)

(Tan Kim San v Lim Cher Kia (2001))

Court Held: The plaintiffs had not been induced by any representations to sell their shares to the defendant. Being experienced
businessmen who had access to all the information concerning the companies, they would not have relied on any such statements.

Categories of Misrepresentation (pg 155)

There are three categories of Misrepresentation: Fraudulent, negligent, and innocent misrepresentation. Remedies available depend on the
category of misrepresentation the particular situation falls under.

***Fraudulent Misrepresentation

False statement made by representor knowing that it is false. (Derry v Peek (1889))
House of Lords held: For fraudulent misrep to arise, the false representation must be made knowingly or, without belief in its truth, or
recklessly, careless as to whether it is true or false. None of the elements present, thus there was no fraudulent misrepresentation in this
case.
Panatron pte ltd v Lee cheow lee & another (2001)
Court of appeal held: Phua did make the alleged representations to the respondents, and Phua knew that these representations were
false. The trial judges findings satisfied the essential requirements of the law on fraudulent mirep as laid down in Derry v Peek.

Negligent Misrepresentation

Arises when false statement is made by the representor without due care. (Howard Maine & dredging co ltd v A Ogden & Sons
(Excavations) Ltd (1978))
Court Held: Howard Marine was liable for negligent mirep. Although the manager made the statement honestly, he had no reasonable
grounds for it. A reasonable manager would have checked the shipping docs and not relied on Lloyds register.

Innocent Misrepresentation

Arises where the representor made the false statement without fraud and without fault. Made false statement believing and having
reasonable grounds to believe in its truth.
7
**Remedies for different categories of Misrepresentation (pg 159)

Fraudulent Misrepresentation Rescission + Damages

Negligent Misrepresentation Rescission (or Dmg in lieu) + Damages
Innocent Misrepresentation Rescission (or Dmg in lieu) + Indemnity

***Mistake (pg 160)

There are relatively few mistakes which can vitiate a contract. Only mistakes which lie at the root of the contract would have that
effect. No party under the contract can claim any rights or be under any liability once the contract is avoided.

***Unilateral mistakes

Occurs when only when one party is mistaken. The other pary knows or ought to have known the first partys mistatkes. The test is an
objective one based on what a reasonable person would have known in similar circumstances.

***Chwee Kin Keong & Others v Digilandmall.com pte ltd (2005)

Appellants knew that defendant made a mistake in pricing and got people to buy the printers and being opportunistic about it. Contract
terminated due to unilateral mistake.
Court Held: On appeal, the court of appeal held that it was only where the court found that there was actual knowledge by the non-
mistaken part of the mistaken partys error. The court found that each of the appellants had actual knowledge of Digilandmalls
mistake.

Discharge (Termination)
***Introduction (pg 169)

Once a contract is created, it must be discharged. After a contract is discharged, the parties are generally relieved of their
obligations under the contract. There are four main ways in which a contract may come to an end: Performance, breach,
agreement, and frustration.

Performance (pg 169)

The parties performed their obligations as stipulated in the contract and, once all obligations are performed, the contract
comes to an end.

*Breach (pg 173)

The second way in which a contract may be discharged is by breach of contract. A breach of contract occurs when a party fails to
perform all his obligations under the contract.

RDC Concrete Pte Ltd v Sato Kogyo (S) pte ltd v Another Appeal (pg 174)

Court Held: Consequences of the breach should also be examined by the court. If the consequences of the breach are such as to deprive
the innocent party of substantially the whole benefit that it was intended that the innocent party should obtain from the contract, then
the innocent party would be entitled to terminate the contract, notwithstanding that it only constitutes a warranty.

*****Frustration (pg 183)

Frustration refers to the situation where a supervening event occurs, for which neither party is responsible, with the result that the very
basis of the contract is destroyed so that the venture to which the parties now find themselves committed is radically different from
that originally contemplated (agreed).

(Before performing of contract, something happened not within control, basis of contract destroyed)

***Davis Contractors ltd v Fareham Urban District Council (1956)

8
 Court held: The cost increase did not alter the situation so much that the task undertaken was radically different from what was
originally contemplated by the parties.

Types of frustrated contracts: Destruction of subject-matter, government interference, non-occurrence of event, personal incapacity.

9
Destruction of subject-matter (pg 184)

One of the clearest examples of frustration is where the subject matter of the contract is destroyed due to no fault of the parties.
Taylor v Caldwell (1863)
Court held: Contract was discharged by frustration.

Non occurrence of Event

Event occurrence forms the underlying basis of the contract is cancelled or postponed due to no fault of the parties.
Krell v Henry (1903)
English court of appeal held: The contract was frustrated because the basis of the contract was the coronation procession and the view
afforded by the flat. Once the coronation was postponed, the purpose for which the flat was rented vanished.
Herne Bay Steamboat v Hutton (1903)
English court of appeal held: The contract was not frustrated. One reason was that a tour of the fleet was still possible although the
naval review was cancelled.

***Personal incapacity - Contract for personal service

A contract for personal services may be frustrated by personal incapacity if the incapacity affects the performance of the
contract in a fundamental way.
Specific person to provide service
**Poussard v Spiers & Pond (1876)
Court Held: The contract for personal service was frustrated because of Madame Poussard illness.

Contract for service

Subject of service is specified, whether or not they are provided by a particular person.

***Effect of Frustration (pg 191)

The overall effect of the common law and the statutory provisions can be summarised as follows:

Terminate contract without penalty, as if contract not entered. [copy all in exam]

a) All future obligations of the parties cease: Fibrosa Case;

b) Money paid prior to time of discharge is recoverable: S2(2) FCA; [bring back before contract is entered]
c) Money payable ceases to be payable: S2(2) FCA;
d) Expenses incurred prior to time of discharge can be recovered: S2(3) FCA; and
e) Benefits conferred (other than money) prior to time of discharge can be compensated with an amount the court
considers just: S2(4) FCA

Remedies (For breach of contract) (pg 196)

A breach implies wrongdoing by the defaulting party. Remedies are the cures which are available to the injured party to rectify or
compensate for the breach. Conceptually, remedies are available not only in cases of breach of contract.
General position at common law is that injured party will always have a right to claim damages for loss resulting from breach of
contract even if he is not entitled to terminate the contract. (Johnson v Agnew (1979))

Aspects of damages

Causation, remoteness, mitigation, assessment

Causation

Plaintiff should not be entitled to recover damages for breach of contract if the breach did not cause the loss suffered by
the plaintiff. (Monarch SS Co v Karlshamns Oljefabriker (1949)
Court Held: The effective cause of the delay was the vessels unseaworthiness and hence it was the appellants fault. The
prohibition by the British authorities was not the cause of the delay.

Remoteness

Once causation is established, the extent of loss can be quite extensive. Hadley v Baxendale (1854)

10
 Court Held: As the loss was unusual, before Baxendale would be liable, Hadley must have actually told Baxendale that
the delivery of the new crankshaft must not be delayed since he had none to spare. Hadley did not tell Baxendale this.
Hence, Baxendale was not liable for the loss of profit.
2 parts to damages:
Normal Damages Damage arising naturally.
(RDC concrete pte ltd v Sato Kogyo (s) pte ltd & Another Appeal)
Special damage In order to claim special damages, the wrongdoer must know the special circumstances. (must let the
other party know) (Singapore Telecommunications Ltd v Starhub Cable Vision Ltd (2006)

Mitigation

Mitigation simply means that a plaintiff cannot recover loss which he could have avoided. Thus, Plaintiff is obliged to
minimise his loss. If he fails to do so, the amt of dmgs he can recover will be reduced by the amount which he could have
saved if he had mitigated his loss.
British Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co Ltd v Underground Electric Railways Co of London (1912)
Court Held: The fundamental basis is compensation for pecuniary loss naturally flowing from the breach; but this first
principle is qualified by a second, which imposes on a plaintiff the duty of taking all reasonable steps to mitigate the loss
consequent on the breach, and debars him from claiming any part of the damage which is due to his neglect to take such
steps.

Assessment (pg 205)

Injured party is to be placed in the same financial position he would be in if the contract had been properly performed:
(Trigen Industries Ltd v Sinko Technologies Pte Ltd & Another)
Damages awarded to an injured party are sometimes classified under two headings: Damages for loss of profit (Expected
loss) and damages for wasted expenditure. Expected loss loss is the amount which the injured party would have
expected to gain had the contract been performed properly. Wasted expenditure Expenses incurred by the injured party
who, relying upon the contract, incurred expenses which are rendered wasted because of the breach. (Aero gate pte ltd
v engen marine engineering pte ltd (2013))

(Anglia Television Ltd v Reed (1970))

Court held: Angelia Television was entitled to recover damages of $2,700 representing its wasted expenditure, regardless
of whether the expenditure was incurred before or after the contract as entered into with Reed.

11