PLEXIAN INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER v. JIN TIN INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS

PLEXIAN INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER v. JIN TIN INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS

On the evidence and documents before the court the 1st defendant was trading in its own right as seller (pro forma invoices and demand letter describing D1 as seller); the balance sheet defence lacked particularity and was unsustainable; the alleged oral agency agreement was not credible on the surrounding circumstances; accordingly judgment is entered for the plaintiffs against D1.

Citation
PLEXIAN INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER v. JIN TIN INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Plexian International Limited; 2nd Plaintiff: Zebracom N.V.; 1st Defendant: Jin Tin International Limited; 2nd Defendant: Amir Geva; 3rd Defendant: Glory Lau
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 June 2007
Case Number
HCA1058/2006
Procedural Posture
Sale of Goods / Contract / Order 14 Application (summary Determination) — Heard 27 June 2007; Decision 27 June 2007
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiffs
Legal Topics
Order 14 Application, Summary Judgment, Agency Vs Principal, Set Off / Balance Sheet Defence
Source Language
EN
Contract Sale of Goods Civil Procedure Agency Order 14 Application Summary Judgment Agency Vs Principal Set Off / Balance Sheet Defence

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plexian International Limited

1st Plaintiff

Zebracom N.V.

2nd Plaintiff

Jin Tin International Limited

1st Defendant

Amir Geva

2nd Defendant

Glory Lau

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Sale of Goods / Contract / Order 14 Application (summary Determination) — Heard 27 June 2007; Decision 27 June 2007

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the balance sheet point (set-off/reimbursement) discloses a triable defence
  2. 2 Whether the 1st defendant acted as agent or as principal/seller
  3. 3 Whether the pleaded oral agency agreement is credible and supported by surrounding circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence and documents before the court the 1st defendant was trading in its own right as seller (pro forma invoices and demand letter describing D1 as seller); the balance sheet defence lacked particularity and was unsustainable; the alleged oral agency agreement was not credible on the surrounding circumstances; accordingly judgment is entered for the plaintiffs against D1.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiffs

Orders

  • Judgment for the plaintiffs against the 1st defendant (Jin Tin International Limited)