SINGAPORE: A man who sold a woman two counterfeit luxury watches sued her for an outstanding payment of S$16,000 (US$12,100), but he lost the suit when she countersued on the basis that the timepieces were fake.
The court ordered him to pay the woman S$28,000 that she had given him for a Rolex Datejust Diamond watch, with interest.
Mr Hon G applied to the High Court for permission to appeal against the decision, but the court dismissed his application on Wednesday (Jul 19).
THE CASE
According to the judgment, Mr Hon entered into an oral agreement in January 2022 with his then-friend, Ms Tan Pei Li, to sell her two pre-owned luxury watches.
These were a Rolex Datejust Diamond watch and a Hublot Big Bang Unico Diamond watch. Ms Tan was to pay S$28,000 for the Rolex first, while the payment of S$16,000 for the Hublot would be deferred.
She paid Mr Hon for the Rolex and both watches were delivered to her. However, she withheld payment of the remaining S$16,000, saying that the watches were not authentic.
Mr Hon then filed a claim in a magistrate’s court seeking the remaining payment of S$16,000 from Ms Tan. In response, Ms Tan made a counterclaim for Mr Hon to refund her the purchase price of S$28,000 for the Rolex.
She said that a key term of the agreement was that the watches must be authentic. However, an expert found that the watches were counterfeit.
Mr Hon accepted that the watches were sold on the basis that they were authentic, and that the watches that were examined by the expert were actually counterfeit.
However, he claimed that the watches that were delivered to Ms Tan and the watches that were examined by the expert were different.
He added that Ms Tan was facing financial difficulties at the time, which provided a motive for her to pass the counterfeit watches to the expert for examination.
The district judge ruled in favour of Ms Tan. The judge accepted that the watches were not authentic and found Mr Hon’s claim that the watches had been swapped to be “unsubstantiated and speculative”.
The judge allowed Ms Tan’s counterclaim on the basis that the contract had been breached. She was therefore entitled to a refund of the S$28,000 she had paid, with interest.
The district judge also ordered Mr Hon to pay Ms Tan costs of S$8,000, as well as any disbursements and applicable Goods and Services Tax.
Mr Hon wanted to appeal against the decision but had to obtain permission before he could. After a district judge dismissed his application to do so, he turned to the High Court.
Senior Judge Tan Siong Thye also dismissed Mr Hon’s application for permission to appeal, after finding that there was no reason that would justify giving him permission to do so.