Rals International Pte Ltd v. Cassa di Rispamio di Parma e Piacenza SpA
Singapore Court of Appeal
[2016] SGCA 53 (2016)
- Written by Sara Adams, JD
Facts
Rals International Pte Ltd (Rals) (plaintiff), a Singaporean company, purchased equipment from the Italian supplier Oltremare SRL (Oltremare) by a supply agreement. The supply agreement stated that it was governed by Singaporean law and established that arbitration of claims was to take place in Singapore. Rals agreed to pay Oltremare in 10 installments, with the first two due in cash and the remaining eight due as payments on promissory notes. Nothing in the promissory notes or supply agreement indicated that the arbitration provision was intended to carry over from the supply agreement to the promissory notes. Prior to the due date of the first promissory note, Oltremare assigned the promissory notes to the Italian bank Cassa di Risparmio di Parma e Piacenze SpA (Cariparma) (defendant). Cariparma provided the first four notes to Rals for payment, and Rals refused to honor them, so Cariparma filed a court action in Singapore against Rals for the owed payments. Based on the arbitration clause in the supply agreement, Rals applied to the court for a stay under the International Arbitration Act of Singapore. The Singapore High Court denied the request for a stay on the ground that payment pursuant to the promissory notes did not fall within the scope of the arbitration clause. Rals appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Prakash, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
