Smrt Case Brief

COMMERCIAL LAW

Individual Assignment

2 October 2015

by

Zailina Binte Zainal Abidin

CT0247799

FT Dip EM4

for

Ms Anita Vashi

Question 1

INTRODUCTION:

The East-West line off Singapore’s MRT network is operated by SMRT Trains Ltd and is owned by SMRT Corporation (SMRT, 2015). SMRT is subjected to the MRT Operating Performance Standard set by the Land Transport Authority of Singapore (LTA), and faces financial penalties and must carry out remedial actions whenever this standard is breached (LTA, 2015).

On the day of the incident, John boarded the MRT on the East-West line heading towards Joo Koon at Pasir Ris at 7.42AM, which eventually broke down along the way. John was late to and missed an interview set at 9AM for a full scholarship to Oxford University, worth $100,000. John believes SMRT is responsible for his loss of a chance at the scholarship and wants to claim damages.

John is assumed to be of legal capacity to enter into a contract, as he is assumed to be a citizen and to have completed post-secondary education (in order to be eligible for admission into Oxford University) and/or have completed compulsory National Service. It is understood that John had an intent to create legal relations with SMRT, and his payment for the MRT to take him from Pasir Ris to Clementi shows the existence of consideration. The fact that John managed to board the MRT at all that morning shows that both parties had successfully formed a legally-binding agreement.

ISSUES:

1. Is SMRT liable in breach of contract for the loss that has occurred to John as a result of its MRT breakdown? What is the amount of damages to which John is entitled for breach of contract?
2. Is SMRT liable in tort of negligence for the loss that has occurred to John; also to what extent?

RULES:

The belief that an offer made to the world at large can be accepted by anyone was established in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893), where the wording of the advertisement was proven to have amounted to an offer and the purchase and use of the product showed acceptance (Lange, 2015).

The express undertakings in a contract are known as the terms of the contract (Lange, 2015). These terms must be distinguished from pre-contractual representations (Lange, 2015). If these representations are not explicitly included or enforced during the formation of the contract, they are not likely to be considered terms of the contract (Lange, 2015). This is demonstrated in Routledge v McKay (1954), where the court held that the statement about the age of the motorcycle in question was a pre-contractual representation and that the defendant was not suable for damages for breach of contract (Lange, 2015).