HIGHLINE UNITED ASIA LTD v. TRIPLE 8 LICENSING CO LTD

HIGHLINE UNITED ASIA LTD v. TRIPLE 8 LICENSING CO LTD

On the facts and contemporaneous documentary record Highline, not Ash HK, was the contracting party to the SS14 Order; the Ash Philippines Agreement did not govern the SS14 Order; T8 failed to adduce any evidence of defects and therefore its defence of defective goods failed; Highline proved the invoiced sums for the SS14 Order and for the Miscellaneous Goods and judgment was entered for those amounts with costs payable by Triple 8 Licensing Co Limited.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 917
Parties
Plaintiff (hca 1647) / Defendant (hca 2148): Triple 8 Licensing Co Limited; Defendant (hca 1647): Ash (Hong Kong) Limited; Plaintiff (hca 2148): Highline United Asia Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 April 2021
Case Number
HCA2148/2014
Procedural Posture
Contract / Commercial Dispute (sale of Goods; Distribution Agreements; Letter of Credit) / Trial (judgment and Reserved Reasons Delivered)
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff Highline United Asia Limited on the 2nd Action for the amounts claimed under the SS14 Order and the Miscellaneous Goods; defendant Triple 8 Licensing Co Limited struck out in part for failure to attend pre‑trial review; costs awarded to Highline and Ash HK as ordered.
Legal Topics
Sale of Goods, Distribution Agreement, Letter of Credit (l/c, UCP 600), Defective Goods, Agency and Principal, Termination, Costs
Source Language
EN
Contract Law Commercial Law Agency Law Banking Law (letters of Credit) Sale of Goods Distribution Agreement Letter of Credit (l/c, UCP 600) Defective Goods +3 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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Triple 8 Licensing Co Limited

Plaintiff (hca 1647) / Defendant (hca 2148)

Ash (Hong Kong) Limited

Defendant (hca 1647)

Highline United Asia Limited

Plaintiff (hca 2148)

Procedural Posture

Contract / Commercial Dispute (sale of Goods; Distribution Agreements; Letter of Credit) / Trial (judgment and Reserved Reasons Delivered)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Highline was the contracting party to the SS14 Order
  2. 2 Whether the SS14 Order was subject to the Ash Philippines Agreement
  3. 3 Whether the Ash Shoes delivered under the SS14 Order were defective and if so how many

Ratio Decidendi

On the facts and contemporaneous documentary record Highline, not Ash HK, was the contracting party to the SS14 Order; the Ash Philippines Agreement did not govern the SS14 Order; T8 failed to adduce any evidence of defects and therefore its defence of defective goods failed; Highline proved the invoiced sums for the SS14 Order and for the Miscellaneous Goods and judgment was entered for those amounts with costs payable by Triple 8 Licensing Co Limited.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff Highline United Asia Limited on the 2nd Action for the amounts claimed under the SS14 Order and the Miscellaneous Goods; defendant Triple 8 Licensing Co Limited struck out in part for failure to attend pre‑trial review; costs awarded to Highline and Ash HK as ordered.

Orders

  • Judgment for Highline for US$208,901.55 (SS14 Order)
  • Judgment for Highline for US$12,052.97 (Miscellaneous Goods)