WINNER CO (HK) LTD v. ARTHUR A. SEIDMAN & CO

WINNER CO (HK) LTD v. ARTHUR A. SEIDMAN & CO

The Full Court affirmed the trial judge's findings of fact that Exh. P.1 was the sample sent by the defendants and that the bulk did not correspond with it; that the goods were therefore in breach of the implied condition under s17 Sale of Goods Ordinance; consequential losses (loss of profit and loss on resale) including storage, insurance and bank interest were direct and natural results of the breach and recoverable under s55; the judge did not err on burden of proof or by relying on witness demeanour; and the court properly exercised its discretion under s30A to award interest. The appeal was dismissed and the trial judgment affirmed.

Citation
WINNER CO (HK) LTD v. ARTHUR A. SEIDMAN & CO
Parties
Appellant (defendant): Winner Company (H.K.) Limited; Respondent (plaintiff): Arthur A. Seidman & Company
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Case Number
CACV10/1971
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (sale of Goods) / Appeal From Trial Judgment (full Court Review)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; trial judgment affirmed.
Legal Topics
Sale by Sample, Implied Condition as to Sample, Fitness for Purpose, Burden of Proof and Credibility, Measure of Damages, Interest on Damages, Mitigation of Loss, Admissibility of Sub Purchaser Evidence
Source Language
EN
Sale of Goods Contract Law Commercial Law Evidence Damages Sale by Sample Implied Condition as to Sample Fitness for Purpose +5 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Winner Company (H.K.) Limited

Appellant (defendant)

Arthur A. Seidman & Company

Respondent (plaintiff)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (sale of Goods) / Appeal From Trial Judgment (full Court Review)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the exhibited sample (Exh. P.1) was proved to be the sample sent by defendant
  2. 2 Whether the bulk corresponded with the sample and thus whether there was breach of the implied condition for sale by sample
  3. 3 Whether the bulk was unsaleable to the plaintiffs' customers (fitness for purpose) and whether evidence of trial purchasers was admissible to prove unsaleability

Ratio Decidendi

The Full Court affirmed the trial judge's findings of fact that Exh. P.1 was the sample sent by the defendants and that the bulk did not correspond with it; that the goods were therefore in breach of the implied condition under s17 Sale of Goods Ordinance; consequential losses (loss of profit and loss on resale) including storage, insurance and bank interest were direct and natural results of the breach and recoverable under s55; the judge did not err on burden of proof or by relying on witness demeanour; and the court properly exercised its discretion under s30A to award interest. The appeal was dismissed and the trial judgment affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; trial judgment affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs to the Respondent
  • Judgment for the Respondent for HK$191,656.10 (equivalent to US$31,626.42 at HK$6.06=US$1) as previously awarded by the trial court