The SIN GEE SENG v WAI WAH TRADING CO [1962] 1 MLJ 189 case plaintiff is

Furniture Contractors and the Defendant is sole proprietor of Seng Hong Trading Co.The
case is brought to claim the damages for trespass to land,trespass to goods , and
conversion.The fourth claim is about, alternative to the second and third claim.Its for return
their products or their value, which was said to be $14,000 as well as damages for their
deterioration and detention.

The matter of the case was brought under the Trespass of the Good because On December
26, 1958, the defendants' servants or agents entered the plaintiffs' store illegally and forcibly
and removed 183 of those cases. The defendants caused the police to remove the final 17
cases from the store. In a letter dated January 6, 1959, the plaintiffs asked for the restoration
of the 200 cases. The items were wrongfully held hostage by the defendants because they
refused to comply with the demand. As a result, the plaintiffs experienced loss and
damage.This claim is made by the plaintiff

These were the crucial allegations made by the defence. The 200 cases of plate glass
belonged to the defendants at all relevant dates. On December 22 and 24, 1958, one Tan Kiat
Cheng defrauded them of the products. On December 24th, they filed a police report. 122 of
the 200 cases were discovered to be kept at 65-U Bartley Road on December 26. The
manager and staff of the accused entered the business with permission and a business licence.
Out of the 122 cases, they took 105; these were taken over by the police while Tan Kiat
Cheng was being investigated for a crime; the police then withdrew the remaining 17 cases
from the business. The 200 cases were not unjustly held by the defendants. The plaintiffs
didn't experience any loss or damageIn reply to that claim made my defendant, .The plaintiffs
said in their response that they were unaware of Tan Kiat Cheng's alleged deceit of the
defendants and that they had purchased the 200 cases of plate glass as part of their routine
business operations.

The first thing had to be decided was whether Tan Kiat Cheng, the sole owner of Seng Hong
Trading Co., acquired the property in the 200 cases of plate glass from the defendants. The
manager of the defendants, Quan Ying Lum, provided the following testimony. Tan Kiat
Cheng placed an order for 121 cases of window glass and 79 cases of drawn sheet glass on
December 20th, 1958. Tan Kiat Cheng agreed to pay $14,788.73 in cash for the products
upon delivery. On December 22, 1958, Seng Hong Trading Co.'s store at No. 2 Padang
Jeringau received the items as required. Quan demanded payment, but Tan deterred him by
claiming that the goods needed to be inspected by his clerk, who was not there, and that he
would contact Quan once the clerk returned. Quan visited Tan on December 23 at eight in the
morning. Tan informed Quan that because the clerk had not yet arrived back, the things had
not been examined.. Tan responded that until the items were examined, he could not pay for
them.
Finally, Tan instructed Quan to visit him once more on December 24. Quan acted in this
manner.Tan handed the man a check. Quan rejected it and insisted that cash only be used for
payment. Tan indicated that due to the possibility of robbery, it was better to accept a cheque.
Quan accepted the cheque knowing that if it was not honoured, he would return the products.
Because the amount stated in figures and the amount written in words were different, the
bank refused to accept the cheque. From Tan, another check was acquired. The bank refused
to honour this.Tan was not in his office when Quan went to look for him after getting the
cheque from the bank.When Quan visited the Seng Hong Trading Co. store, he discovered
that the goods had been taken out. He then submitted a report at the Central Police Station.
On December 26th, he visited Tan's office. A young man there informed him that Tan had
fled and the glass was in Bartley Road.

The matter needed to consider is,Tan is a sole proprietor of Seng Hong Trading Co,give
plaintiffs a goods title to the 200 case of plate glass, even though he is not the owner of the
goods when he sold them to the plaintiff.The plaintiffs purchased the goods for $14,016.20
(which was the price after deducting a discount of 10% for cash) from Seng Hong Trading
Co. in good faith and without knowledge of any rights of the defendants in relation to the
goods.There is a Trespass by The defendant side.This is proved, when defendant manager,
Quan and along with 20 person came to the store at 65-U Bartley Road with 3 lorries and 3
cars.They demand the key from the employee.With the key, they entered the store and
removed 183 of the 200 cases of plate glass, out of which about 40 had already been
unpacked by the storekeeper at the plaintiffs' request. The manager of the defendants and the
other men who came with him also removed the glass that had already been unpacked. The
manager of the defendants, Quan, claimed that he believed the shop belonged to Seng Hong
Trading Co., that he asked the shopkeeper to open the door so he could look inside, that the
goods belonged to the defendants, and that he intended to take the goods regardless of the
consequences.
.
There was a disagreement over how much plate glass the defendants had taken from the
plaintiffs' establishment. I accepted the storekeeper's testimony that, just before the
defendants' manager's arrival, there were approximately 150 cases inside the store, along with
unpackaged glass from 40 cases, and approximately 10 cases outside in the store's enclosure.
I did not accept the manager of the defendant, Quan, who said there was no unpacking of
glass when he entered the business. He left a bad impression on me as a witness, leading me
to believe he was lying. The business owner, on the other hand, made a good impression on
me and I trusted him to be an honest witness.s. After receiving a call from the storekeeper,
Tan Soo Kuan arrived at the store with the police after the loaded lorries had left, and I was
convinced based on the testimony of the storekeeper and Tan Soo Kuan, who also impressed
me as a trustworthy witness, that there were only 17 cases and no unpacked glass in the store
at the time. Due to the defendants' actions, the police removed the 17 cases on December 30,
1958, along with 59 empty cases and a few loose planks. There was no proof that the 200
cases that the plaintiffs had acquired from Seng Hong Trading Co. included all 59 empty
cases and loose planks.

Well, can come to the conclusion that the defendants removed 10 cases from the business's
premises, together with 133 cases and the contents of 40 cases, from the store. The facts
determined that the defendants were responsible for converting the 143 cases, the contents of
the 40 instances they removed, as well as the 17 cases that the police removed as a result
otheir actions.So, this can clearly explicit that, the action to note that the owner of the
property must have a right of possession or ownership of the property for the tort of trespass
to goods to apply. If the owner of the property does not have a right of possession or
ownership, they may not be able to bring a claim for trespass to goods.In this case, the
defendant have the ownership but, the plaintiff also share the same ownership.

The defendants' legal representatives argued that they had a right to enter the plaintiffs'
premises and reclaim their own belongings.So it's clearly expressed that, the defendants
committed trespass to goods as they wrongfully interfered with the plaintiffs' possession of
them by removing them from the plaintiffs' store.The judgement for the plaintiffs, awarding
$1,000 as damages for trespass to lands and trespass to goods and $14,000 as damages for
conversion, and ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiffs the costs of the action.
The judgement appropriately falling under the Trespass to goods in Singapore refers to the
act of intentionally interfering with someone's possession of their personal property without
their consent. It is a civil wrong that can result in legal liability for the trespasser.In
Singapore, the tort of trespass to goods is governed by the common law principles, which
have been developed through judicial decisions. Under the tort of trespass to goods, a person
can be held liable if they intentionally or negligently interfere with another person's
possession of their personal property.If a person is found liable for the tort of trespass to
goods, they may be ordered to pay damages to the owner of the property. The damages may
include compensation for any loss or damage suffered as a result of the trespass, as well as
any costs incurred in repairing or replacing the damaged property.