JUDGMENT

Hamid Sultan Abu Backer JC:

[1] This is my judgment in respect of the plaintiff's claim for goods sold and delivered to the defendant amounting to Singapore dollars S$131,056.44.

Brief Facts

[2] The plaintiff, a Singapore company has supplied goods to the defendant. The plaintiff's claim is premised on four invoices, namely invoice nos. 5273, 5581, 5300 and 5350. The defendant does not dispute invoice no. 5273 for the sum of S$708 and invoice no. 5581 for the sum of S$5,581 and consents to pay the same amounting to the sum of S$6,289 save that they say interests ought not be allowed as the plaintiff has not furnished them with the original invoice and payment will only be made upon receipt of the original invoice.

[3] The plaintiff contends that (i) there is a valid contract of sale for the goods under invoice nos. 5300 and 5350. (ii) the goods under invoice nos. 5300 and 5350 were all goods which the defendant has ordered via numerous exchanges of faxes, verbal communications as the plaintiff and defendant had been doing through previous dealings, by way of amendments of quotations and invoices, re-coding of invoices at the defendant's request, as the orders were verbally asked to be amended, (iii) invoice no. 5300 is a re-coded invoice for some of the goods in invoice no. 5176. (iv) invoice no. 5350 is a re-coded invoice for invoice no. 5174 in order to accommodate the defendant's request for amendments to the orders and also the nature of the transaction, in which the source of the goods would come from multiple global sources, (v) the goods under invoice nos. 5300 and 5350 were delivered to the defendant upon its instruction(s) through its appointed agent, Cavan International Pte Ltd c/o Chua Brothers Transportation and Warehousing and Famous Freight Forwarders (S) Pte Ltd respectively, (vi) invoice nos. 5300 and 5350 were sent to the defendant by fax and post and payment was demanded and the defendant refused to pay. (vii) the previous course of conduct in ordinary course of business and series of past transactions and also contemporaneous transactions between plaintiff and defendant will indicate that it is the usual method of business dealing between the plaintiff and defendant for orders to be amended and adjusted at the defendant's election, (viii) furthermore, the delivery of the goods under invoice no. 5301 at the same time as the goods under invoice no. 5300 through Cavan International Pte Ltd will indicate that indeed the defendant did order the goods under invoice no. 5300. (ix) no protest from the defendant or the defendant's agent were made when the goods were delivered. The defendant never protested against the plaintiff's statement of account on numerous occasions when sent with copies of the same. In addition, some of the invoices in these series of transactions have been paid for by the defendant. This will indicate that the transactions must be taken as a whole rather than in isolation.

[4] The defendant disputes the plaintiff's invoice nos. 5300 and 5350 on the grounds: (a) the plaintiff never quoted the goods under invoice nos. 5300 and 5350 to defendant, (b) the defendant never ordered the goods under invoice nos. 5300 and 5350. (c) there was no agreement between plaintiff and defendant on the sale and purchase of the goods under plaintiff's alleged invoice nos. 5300 and 5350. (d) Cavan International Pte Ltd, Chua Brothers Transportation & Warehousing & Famous Freight Forwarders (S) Pte Ltd were never instructed and were never authorized by the defendant to deal with or accept delivery of the goods allegedly delivered under plaintiff's invoice nos. 5300 and 5350. (e) the goods, if delivered, by plaintiff to Cavan International Pte Ltd., Chua Brothers Transportation & Warehousing and or Famous Freight Forwarders (S) Pte Ltd, were delivered without the defendant's consent or knowledge. (f) furthermore, for invoice no. 5350, the goods under invoice no. 5350 were the same as the goods under plaintiff's o