← All Authorities
Singapore implied terms

Centre for Laser and Aesthetic Medicine Pte Ltd v GPK Clinic (Orchard) Pte Ltd

[2018] SGCA 14
JurisdictionSingapore
CourtSingapore Court of Appeal
Year2018
StatusBinding authority

Summary

Singapore Court of Appeal applied the Sembcorp Marine framework, requiring both the officious bystander and business efficacy tests to imply a term in fact into a contract.

Key Principle

implied terms; officious bystander and business efficacy tests; Sembcorp Marine applied

Area of Law

contract

Related Cases

Mann v Paterson Constructions Pty Ltd (2019) 267 CLR 560

On termination of a building contract, a builder may recover reasonable value of work done in restitution, subject to the contract price as a ceiling where work was performed under a valid contract.

Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (2016) 258 CLR 525

Bank late payment fees are not penalties where they represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss or protect a legitimate interest of the stipulating party.

Simic v New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation (2016) 260 CLR 85

High Court of Australia examined the principles governing rectification of written contracts for common intention and unilateral mistake in equity.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Centre for Laser and Aesthetic Medicine Pte Ltd v GPK Clinic (Orchard) Pte Ltd and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Centre for Laser and Aesthetic...