Creative Technology V Huawei International â€Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: Discuss About The Creative Technology V Huawei International? Answer: Introducation The present case is based on the provision of breach of contract, misrepresentation of fact and misstatement. Creative Technology Ltd (CTL) against the acts of the Huawei International Pty Ltd. makes the suit. It was stated by CTL that a contract was made in between the parties in the year 2009 where Huawei gave its consent to operate WiMAX network on behalf of CTL. In Singapore, WiMAX network is popular for its mobile network. Creative had demanded to build a network that can provide 1mbps for the downlink and asked for the design from Huawei. After getting the proposal, Huawei had chalked out certain plans regarding the same, delivered radio sites ranging from 184 to 360, and sent the costing of the same to Creative. Creative had ordered for 225 radio sites and the project costing was US$20m. A supply contract was signed in between Creative and Huawei in the year 2010 and the dispute arose regarding the annexure 6 of the contract agreement. However, in the year 2011, problem regard ing the connectivity arose in the WiMAX networking system. After an investigation made by Creative, it was found that the products delivered by Huawei are disputed in nature. Huawei had made an inspection too and the result was quite confusing to them. They to install another 619 radio sites to fix the problem contended it. After hearing the matter, Creative had decided to terminate the contract between them (Chen-Wishart, Loke, Ong, 2016). The reason showed by Creative is the failure of Huawei to meet the criteria of the contractual agreement. accounting to the representatives of creative, Huawei had made a breach regarding the contractual terms as they had stated to provide a good quality of product to Creative Technology (Landa, 2014). Another allegation made by the Creative Technology is that Huawei had told to the company that 225 radio sites are enough to meet the requirements of the Creative Technology and those sites will be able to provide a data connection as demanded by Creative Technology. The facts are supported by many documents (Thanasegaran, 2016). However, after one year, it has been observed that Huawei failed to meet all the requirements and therefore, Creative Technology brought an action under Misrepresentation Act against Huawei. Huawei opposed the fact and told to the court that they had never given any statement of fact to Creative Technology and according to the principle laid down in Tan Chin Seng v Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd [2003] 3 SLR (R) 307, they will not be liable for the misrepresentation of fact (Wong, 2014). However, the counsel of Creative Technology that it is important to decide the actionable claim regarding the misstatement by Huawei pointed it out. It was held that the problem regarding the connection of the networks were took place due to technological problem and Huawei was solely responsible for the fact. Huawei had failed to presume that 225 radio sites could not meet the requirements of Creative Technology. In Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon [1975] 2 WLR 147, it was held by the court that if any of the contractual party have failed to meet the pre-contractual statement, he shall be liable for misrepresentation and action should be taken against him (LEE CHEN, 2016). It was further observed that Huawei had given a wrong statement to creative Technology that 225 radio sites can be able to tackle the WiMAX system nationwide. It was observed on subsequent event that Huawei had made an additional requirement of 619 radio sites for the same purpose. Therefore, misstatement regarding the Huawei got proved. Courts decision: After hearing and examined all the witnesses and the relevant documents, the court has dismissed the counter claim made by Huawei. The reason behind the same was that there was sufficient proof regarding the fact that Huawei had misrepresented the contractual elements and made a wrong statement regarding the number of radio sites. The court had imposed certain pecuniary penalties on Huawei and dismissed the claim made by Huawei. procedure code and the provision of murder has been enlightened in this case. Brief summary: In this case, one Chan Lie Sian was convicted under the Criminal Procedure Code and convicted under section 300 (a) and section 302 (1) of the said Act. It was held by the court that he was involved in the flesh trade and the deceased was a pimp who works for him. Many witnesses stated it that the accused was beaten the deceased up badly that caused death to him and the subject matter of the brawl was an amount of money. The witnesses presented by the prosecution were worked under the accused and reveal their experience on the fateful day before the court. The accused thought that the deceased had stolen his money and the accused was beaten him with an iron rod on his head. Accused had concocted stories before the police officers and paramedics. According to the neurologists, the deceased had several head and spinal injuries. The forensic pathologist, Dr Wee Keng Poh, assured the same. Seven days later of the death of the deceased, the accused had surrender himself and confessed his guilt. During the trial of the case, Business action was taken by the accused to support his innocence. As there was no positive action was taken by the accused, the court was pleased to held him liable under section 300 (a) of Cr. P. C and delivered judgment under section 302 (1) for the punishment of murder. Differences: The first case is civil in nature, while the second one is criminal in nature. The first case had been preceded before the District judges court and the second one is preceded before the Magistrate court. The penalties in the first case are different from the second case. In the first case, provision of the Contract Act was applied and in the second case, provision of the Criminal Procedure Code has been applied. Similarities: The trial process of both the cases was ended up in the High Court. In both the cases, certain penalties were imposed on the guilty party. In both the case, the Court interpreted the provisions of the respective law and the evidence of the witnesses was examined thoroughly. Personal observation: Both the cases are helpful to understand the various dimensions of the contractual breach and provision of the Criminal Code regarding murder. There are a number of cases cited in both the cases and the essence of such cases is also helpful regarding the issue. The similarities and differences of the cases helped to analyze the basic facts of the cases and it is possible to gain knowledge on different provisions of the civil and criminal laws at a time. Reference: Chen-Wishart, M., Loke, A., Ong, B. (Eds.). (2016).Studies in the Contract Laws of Asia: Remedies for Breach of Contract. Oxford University Press. After hearing and examined all the witnesses Grimme, J., Waltermann, R. D., Wetsel, P. H., Knox, J. G., management, S. M., Chen, L. (2013).U.S. Patent Application No. 14/091,844. Landa, J. T. (2014). A theory of the ethnically homogeneous middleman group: an institutional alternative to contract law (with an Afterword).Handbook of East Asian Entrepreneurship, 82. LEE, P. W., CHEN, C. C. (2016). Modernising Company Law: The Singapore Experience.Company and Securities business Law Journal,34(2), 157. Thanasegaran, H. (2016). Pre-contractual Duty of Disclosure and Misrepresentation. InGood Faith in Insurance and Takaful Contracts in Malaysia(pp. 47-108). Springer Singapore. Wong, R. J. (2014). Judging between Conflicting Expert Evidence--Understanding the Scientific Method and its Impact on Apprehending Expert Evidence.