CSDS AIRCRAFT SALES & LEASING INC. v SINGAPORE AIRLINES LIMITED [2023] SGCA(I) 5 (19 June 2023)

CSDS AIRCRAFT SALES & LEASING INC. v SINGAPORE AIRLINES LIMITED [2023] SGCA(I) 5 (19 June 2023)

The judge was entitled to give decisive weight to the factual evidence of a genuine third-party offer in determining market value, while using expert evidence as a cross-check. The judge did not err in rejecting the expert's concession where it was illogical in context. The six-month period for a substitute sale was reasonable based on the evidence.

Citation
[2023] SGCA(I) 5
Parties
Appellant/defendant: CSDS Aircraft Sales & Leasing Inc; Respondent/plaintiff: Singapore Airlines Limited
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
19 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Assessment of Damages
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Damages for Breach of Contract, Assessment of Damages, Valuation of Goods, Expert Evidence, Sale of Goods
Contract Law Commercial Law Damages for Breach of Contract Assessment of Damages Valuation of Goods Expert Evidence Sale of Goods

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CSDS Aircraft Sales & Leasing Inc

Appellant/defendant

Singapore Airlines Limited

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Assessment of Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in determining the market value of the aircraft for damages assessment
  2. 2 Whether the judge wrongly disregarded expert evidence in favour of factual evidence
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in the reasonable time allowed for a substitute sale and related consequential damages

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to give decisive weight to the factual evidence of a genuine third-party offer in determining market value, while using expert evidence as a cross-check. The judge did not err in rejecting the expert's concession where it was illogical in context. The six-month period for a substitute sale was reasonable based on the evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Market value of aircraft fixed at US$1.5 million for damages calculation
  • Damages awarded as contract price less deposit and market value