EDMOND LABELS LTD. v. CAMTON (SPORTSWEAR) CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER

EDMOND LABELS LTD. v. CAMTON (SPORTSWEAR) CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER

The claimant failed to prove that the 1st Defendant held out the 2nd Defendant as authorised to make the contract; although the 2nd Defendant had access and name cards, the claimant was put on inquiry by material facts (unsigned or unsigned as agent documents, delivery instructions to third parties, lack of returned...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
EDMOND LABELS LTD. v. CAMTON (SPORTSWEAR) CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Edmond Labels Limited; 1st Defendant: Camton (Sportswear) Co. Ltd.; 2nd Defendant: Ng Hung Yiu
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 May 1991
Case Number
DCCJ8252/1990
Procedural Posture
Civil Action (district Court) / Judgment Following Trial (default Judgment Previously Entered Against 2nd Defendant)
Outcome
Claim against 1st Defendant dismissed; 2nd Defendant had earlier judgment in default entered and remains liable to extent of that judgment
Legal Topics
Apparent Authority, Holding Out, Estoppel, Implied Warranty of Authority, Reliance and Notice
Source Language
en
Agency Contract Evidence Apparent Authority Holding Out Estoppel Implied Warranty of Authority Reliance and Notice

Source-derived case record

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

Edmond Labels Limited

Plaintiff

Camton (Sportswear) Co. Ltd.

1st Defendant

Ng Hung Yiu

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action (district Court) / Judgment Following Trial (default Judgment Previously Entered Against 2nd Defendant)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2nd Defendant had actual authority to bind the 1st Defendant
  2. 2 Whether the 1st Defendant held out the 2nd Defendant as having apparent authority
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff relied on any representation and was ignorant of lack of authority

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to prove that the 1st Defendant held out the 2nd Defendant as authorised to make the contract; although the 2nd Defendant had access and name cards, the claimant was put on inquiry by material facts (unsigned or unsigned as agent documents, delivery instructions to third parties, lack of returned confirmations) and therefore could not rely on apparent authority; accordingly the 1st Defendant is not liable for the contract purportedly made by the 2nd Defendant.

Court Disposition

Claim against 1st Defendant dismissed; 2nd Defendant had earlier judgment in default entered and remains liable to extent of that judgment

Orders

  • Claim against 1st Defendant dismissed.
  • Default judgment previously entered against 2nd Defendant on 20 September 1990 remains.