ASIA TELEVISION LTD v. MAK CHI KIN t/a WILSON & TOP MARKETING PROMOTION CO AND ANOTHER

ASIA TELEVISION LTD v. MAK CHI KIN t/a WILSON & TOP MARKETING PROMOTION CO AND ANOTHER

The Advance Commitment Discount Scheme required execution by all three parties to be binding; the 1st defendant did not execute the scheme and there was no evidence the 2nd defendant executed it on behalf of the 1st defendant; therefore the scheme did not bind the 1st defendant and the plaintiff's summary judgment application against the 1st defendant could not succeed.

Citation
ASIA TELEVISION LTD v. MAK CHI KIN t/a WILSON & TOP MARKETING PROMOTION CO AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Asia Television Limited; 1st Defendant: Mak Chi Kin trading as Wilson & Top Promotion Company; 2nd Defendant: America Advertising Limited
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 January 2006
Case Number
DCCJ5940/2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Action (debt/contract) / Hearing of Application for Summary Judgment / Judgment on Admission
Outcome
Application for summary judgment dismissed as against the 1st defendant; unconditional leave to the 1st defendant to defend.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Agency Authority and Ratification, Joint and Several Liability, Contract Execution/signature, Contract Interpretation, Default Judgment Effect
Source Language
EN
Contract Agency Civil Procedure Commercial Law Summary Judgment Agency Authority and Ratification Joint and Several Liability Contract Execution/signature +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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Asia Television Limited

Plaintiff

Mak Chi Kin trading as Wilson & Top Promotion Company

1st Defendant

America Advertising Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action (debt/contract) / Hearing of Application for Summary Judgment / Judgment on Admission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st defendant is bound by the Advance Commitment Discount Scheme despite not signing it
  2. 2 Whether the 1st and 2nd defendants are jointly and severally liable under the scheme
  3. 3 Whether the appointment letter/agency relationship and ratification bind the 1st defendant to the scheme

Ratio Decidendi

The Advance Commitment Discount Scheme required execution by all three parties to be binding; the 1st defendant did not execute the scheme and there was no evidence the 2nd defendant executed it on behalf of the 1st defendant; therefore the scheme did not bind the 1st defendant and the plaintiff's summary judgment application against the 1st defendant could not succeed.

Court Disposition

Application for summary judgment dismissed as against the 1st defendant; unconditional leave to the 1st defendant to defend.

Orders

  • Unconditional leave granted to the 1st defendant to defend
  • Costs in the cause (costs of this application to follow the event)