HA HOI-YIN v. ROGER HON t/a WORLD-WIDE TRADING CO

HA HOI-YIN v. ROGER HON t/a WORLD-WIDE TRADING CO

The appeal was allowed because the defendant's counterclaim established that the goods were not as contracted (not new) and justified setting aside the Tribunal's judgment; the appropriate remedy, agreed by the parties, was return of the set to the claimant and repayment of $1,300 to the defendant, which the court entered as judgment on the counterclaim.

Citation
HA HOI-YIN v. ROGER HON t/a WORLD-WIDE TRADING CO
Parties
Appellant (defendant): HA Hoi-yin (F); Respondent (claimant): Roger HON trading as World-Wide Trading Co.
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
29 January 1981
Case Number
HCSA9/1980
Procedural Posture
Small Claims (appeal) / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; original judgment on the claim set aside; judgment entered for the defendant on the counterclaim for $1,300; defendant to return the set to the claimant.
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Non Conforming Goods, Counterclaim, Set Off, Remedy Refund and Return of Goods
Source Language
EN
Hire Purchase Contract Consumer Law Sale of Goods Procedure Counterclaim Breach of Contract Non Conforming Goods Counterclaim +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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HA Hoi-yin (F)

Appellant (defendant)

Roger HON trading as World-Wide Trading Co.

Respondent (claimant)

Procedural Posture

Small Claims (appeal) / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant could recover outstanding instalments under a hire-purchase agreement despite defects in the goods
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's counterclaim for failure to supply a free maintenance card and for delivery of a non-new set should have been considered
  3. 3 Appropriate remedy where goods delivered are not as contracted (new)

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the defendant's counterclaim established that the goods were not as contracted (not new) and justified setting aside the Tribunal's judgment; the appropriate remedy, agreed by the parties, was return of the set to the claimant and repayment of $1,300 to the defendant, which the court entered as judgment on the counterclaim.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; original judgment on the claim set aside; judgment entered for the defendant on the counterclaim for $1,300; defendant to return the set to the claimant.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Judgment upon the claim set aside