張志明 對 創庫迷你倉有限公司

張志明 對 創庫迷你倉有限公司

Although the vendor's standard two‑page terms were in principle incorporable and form part of the licence, the defendant failed to give the plaintiff reasonable notice before invoking clause 9.3; the court found the plaintiff did not prove receipt of the July faxes and that defendant did not know of the 27 July bank payment, but because the defendant's 18/19 July notice and conduct did not constitute reasonable notice to reassert the forfeiture/clearance right the clearance on 4 August 2011 was wrongful; damages are awarded on the proved inventory with symbolic values for unproven items and a specific award for sentimental items, totaling HK$26,650 plus interest and costs.

Citation
張志明 對 創庫迷你倉有限公司
Parties
原告: 張志明; 被告: 創庫迷你倉有限公司
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 May 2014
Case Number
DCCJ3726/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract and Tort (storage/ Conversion) / Judgment at Trial
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim allowed in part; judgment for plaintiff against defendant for HK$26,650 plus interest and costs.
Legal Topics
Incorporation of Terms by Reference, Notice and Forbearance, Breach of Contract, Damages Valuation, Sentimental Value Damages, Evidentiary Burden
Source Language
CH
Contract Law Property Law Tort Conversion Civil Procedure Incorporation of Terms by Reference Notice and Forbearance Breach of Contract Damages Valuation +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

張志明

原告

創庫迷你倉有限公司

被告

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract and Tort (storage/ Conversion) / Judgment at Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the standard terms on the second page were given to the plaintiff and thus incorporated into the licence agreement
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff notified the defendant of change of address on 14 July 2011 and/or gave notice of payment on 27 July 2011
  3. 3 Whether the defendant validly exercised its contractual right to break open and dispose of the storage unit on 4 August 2011 under clause 9.3

Ratio Decidendi

Although the vendor's standard two‑page terms were in principle incorporable and form part of the licence, the defendant failed to give the plaintiff reasonable notice before invoking clause 9.3; the court found the plaintiff did not prove receipt of the July faxes and that defendant did not know of the 27 July bank payment, but because the defendant's 18/19 July notice and conduct did not constitute reasonable notice to reassert the forfeiture/clearance right the clearance on 4 August 2011 was wrongful; damages are awarded on the proved inventory with symbolic values for unproven items and a specific award for sentimental items, totaling HK$26,650 plus interest and costs.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim allowed in part; judgment for plaintiff against defendant for HK$26,650 plus interest and costs.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay plaintiff HK$26,650
  • Interest on HK$26,650 from judgment date to date of payment at the prescribed rate