KAM SIU KNITTING & GARMENT FTY. LTD. v. CAREY & CO. LTD.

KAM SIU KNITTING & GARMENT FTY. LTD. v. CAREY & CO. LTD.

The appeal is dismissed because there are genuine, arguable disputes of fact as to whether acceptance was unconditional or qualified by recorded defects and subsequent events; therefore leave to defend was properly granted and the matters must proceed to trial; only the sum conceded by the defendant was entered as judgment for the plaintiff.

Citation
KAM SIU KNITTING & GARMENT FTY. LTD. v. CAREY & CO. LTD.
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: KAM SIU KNITTING & GARMENT FTY. LTD; Defendant/respondent: CAREY & CO. LTD
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
29 August 2000
Case Number
HCA18711/1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract Appeal / Judgment on Appeal (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed except insofar as judgment entered for conceded sum; leave to defend as to the balance upheld; order nisi for costs to defendant and certificate for counsel granted; lower court orders to stand.
Legal Topics
Acceptance of Goods, Inspection Clauses, Payment for Goods, Leave to Defend, Sample Approval
Source Language
EN
Contract Commercial Law Civil Procedure Acceptance of Goods Inspection Clauses Payment for Goods Leave to Defend Sample Approval

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KAM SIU KNITTING & GARMENT FTY. LTD

Plaintiff/appellant

CAREY & CO. LTD

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract Appeal / Judgment on Appeal (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendant's inspection reports showing a tick in the 'Accept' box constituted unqualified acceptance obliging payment
  2. 2 Whether acceptance was conditional and subject to rectification of defects
  3. 3 Whether the Master erred in granting unconditional leave to defend

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because there are genuine, arguable disputes of fact as to whether acceptance was unconditional or qualified by recorded defects and subsequent events; therefore leave to defend was properly granted and the matters must proceed to trial; only the sum conceded by the defendant was entered as judgment for the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed except insofar as judgment entered for conceded sum; leave to defend as to the balance upheld; order nisi for costs to defendant and certificate for counsel granted; lower court orders to stand.

Orders

  • Judgment for the plaintiff for HKD 33,728 (being 80% of HKD 42,160)
  • Appeal dismissed except as to the conceded sum