Implied Terms, Unjust Enrichment and Quantum Meruit in Singapore
The Impact of the UK Supreme Court Decision in Barton and others v Morris and another in place of Gwyn Jones (deceased) [2023] UKSC 3 on Implied Terms, Unjust Enrichment and Quantum Meruit in Singapore Contracts form the basis of almost
Unjust Enrichment: At Whose Expense?
The Singapore and UK Approaches to a Three-party Situation The law on unjust enrichment has suffered from much uncertainty – especially in a three-party situation where the claimant is the transferor of a benefit through an intermediary, and the defendant is
Deposits – Two Senses of Refundability: Simpson Marine (SEA) Pte Ltd v Jiacipto Jiaravanon [2019] SGCA 7
This commentary visits a decision of the Singapore Court of Appeal, Simpson Marine (SEA) Pte Ltd v Jiacipto Jiaravanon [2019] SGCA 7 concerning a common scenario: the refundability of a deposit remitted for the purpose of reserving goods. This short
Failure of Consideration: Different Facets
Bite-sized primers that summarise contemporary restitution issues in Singapore. This month: a straightforward case that is not. Introduction The facts in Benzline Auto Pte Ltd v Supercars Lorinser Pte Ltd [2018] 1 SLR 239 (Benzline Auto) are simple, and the judgment of
Unjust Enrichment and Lack of Consent
Unjust enrichment claims are more common now. Often, unjust enrichment is pleaded in the alternative and ill-particularised. A pleading of unjust enrichment should take care to particularise how the Defendant was enriched at the Plaintiff’s expense, and the unjust factor(s)