Chang Min Tat FJ (delivering the judgment of the Court):

The respondents, desiring to build a cement factory in Malaysia, imported some 6,000 tons of materials for the erection of this factory. They also required to build ki . Part of the machinery imported went to the fitting out of the twin rotary ki but the ki themselves were brick and mortar, materials obtainable locally and which did not form part of the importation from Japan.

For the erection of the ki the respondents called for tenders. Two tenders were received. They were from Lee Wah Trading Engine Works and Thum Yee. It is not a matter of dispute that these tenderers were shown all the documents necessary for the erection of the ki. They were (1) drawings, (2) an erection manual, (3) welding instructions and (4) the erection schedule.

The appellant is also a contractor but at the time of the calling for the tenders, he did not make any offer. That was for the simple reason that he was not aware of the tender notice. But (and this also is not a matter of dispute) he was subsequently told of this by his friend, one Ng Hong Heng, a director of the respondent company and at his suggestion, if not invitation, he put in a tender. There was a certain informality about his tender. It was contained in a letter. The price he quoted was $126,000, considerably lower than the other two tenders. His was accepted but whether this was because of the figure he quoted or his friendship with this Ng Hong Heng was not clear. The manner in which this tender was made appeared to have been a matter of some considerable importance. It featured prominently at the trial and will have to be referred to later, at an appropriate moment, but for the time being, it is perhaps sufficient to note that in the evidence led by the respondents, the acceptance of his tender was not unqualified and only after some oral discussions.

It is also common to both parties that the appellant did extra work for which he would have to be paid. He quantified the whole work, including the lumpsum contract for the erection of the at $575,270.78, but he said he was paid only $250,000. His claim was for $325,000.

Two observations stand to be made on these pleadings. As we understand the statement of claim, the appellant was paid the $126,000 for the lump-sum contract. His claim therefore was basically for extra work done. Consequently, it seems to us, it would have been more accurately framed by omitting the lump-sum contract and claiming the value of the extra work done at $449,270.78 less $124,000 received, leaving a net claim of $325,270.78. The other remark concerns the prayer for $325,000, a claim rounded off to the nearest thousand. That is either indifferent pleading or unexplained generosity. Perhaps a third observation could be made. The statement of claim did not give the rate or rates at which the extra work was to be paid.

The details of the claim are as follows:

PARTICULARS

(a) Clinker coolers, ID and Exhaust Fans, Boilers, Dust Recoveries, Clean Water Circulations, Off loading from wagons and other works - - - - - $207,718.12

(b) Contract for No. 1 and No. 2 - - - - 126,000

(c) Charges for extra work for No. 1 and No. 2 - - - - - 18,080

(d) Labour for dismantling Coal and Ash Conveyors etc. at Connaught Bridge Power Station - - - - 58,500

(e) Labour for loading Coal and Ash Conveyors etc. at Connaught Bridge Power Station - - - 5,250

(f) Labour for cutting Tippler girders rivets for transporting to Jurong Works at Singapore - - 1,092.80

(g) Supply and lay fairface bricks to close wall openings at Connaught Bridge Power Station - - - - 1,800

(h) Cost of Erection Gantry - - - - 21,624.86

(i) Charges for X'ray welding, supply labour and rods for gouging - - - - 48,246.50

(j) Alterations to and erection of Crusher Conveyor, Parallel and Clay Cutter Conveyors at Cement Works - - - - 56,958.50

(k) Bonus to compensate overtime work of Kiln No. 1 - - - - 30,000

$575,270.78.

There is