Bintai Kindenko Pte Ltd. v. Samsung C&T Corp.

On appeal, Court considered whether trial court: erred in holding that Subcontractor/Applicant was contractually precluded from relying on the unconscionability exception; correctly held that Contractor/Beneficiary’s demand was not fraudulent; and erred in declining to discharge the injunction.

Bintai Kindenko Pte Ltd. v. Samsung C&T Corp.
[2019] SGCA 39 [Singapore]

Topics: Arbitration; Bank Guarantee; Exclusion Clause; Fraud; Incorporation by Reference; Injunction; Unconscionability

Parties:
• Appellant/Subcontractor/Applicant – Bintai Kindenko Pte. Ltd.
• Respondent/Contractor/Beneficiary – Samsung C&T Corp.
• Principal – HSBC Institutional Trust Services (S) Ltd.
• Issuer – DBS Bank Ltd.

Summary Note:

As the main contractor for HSBC Institutional Trust Services (S) Ltd. (Principal), Samsung C&T Corp. (Contractor) engaged Bintai Kindenko Pte. Ltd. (Subcontractor) to perform mechanical and engineering work for the main Suntec City Convention Centre works (the Project). Following negotiation of terms regarding a first letter of acceptance, Contractor sent a Second Letter of Acceptance (LOA), which Subcontractor accepted in full. Clause 3 of the LOA provided that it would be “executed on a ‘back-to-back’ basis in accordance with the relevant clauses of the Main Contract” and “including all Particular Conditions as set out in the Main Contract.” Clause 6 of the LOA required Subcontractor to provide Contractor with a “performance bond” for 5% of the subcontract value.

Great! You’ve successfully signed up.

Welcome back! You've successfully signed in.

You've successfully subscribed to Documentary Credit World.

Success! Check your email for magic link to sign-in.

Success! Your billing info has been updated.

Your billing was not updated.