FINE MASTER LTD v. NIPPON CIRCUITS LTD

FINE MASTER LTD v. NIPPON CIRCUITS LTD

The confirmation letter was a binding guarantee supported by valid consideration arising from the established commercial practice, the insurer's involvement and the plaintiff's forbearance and continued supply; its wording covered both past and future purchase orders and any ambiguity was construed against the defendant; the 14 January 2010 statement of account did not supersede or vary the guarantee; and the agency defence failed for lack of evidence. Judgment was therefore entered for the plaintiff for the claimed sum with interest and costs.

Citation
FINE MASTER LTD v. NIPPON CIRCUITS LTD
Parties
Plaintiff: Fine Master Ltd.; Defendant: Nippon Circuits Ltd.
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 March 2013
Case Number
HCA919/2010
Procedural Posture
Contract/guarantee Debt / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff
Legal Topics
Consideration, Interpretation of Guarantee, Supersession, Admission of Account, Contra Proferentem, Interest and Costs
Source Language
EN
Contract Suretyship Agency Evidence Consideration Interpretation of Guarantee Supersession Admission of Account +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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fine Master Ltd.

Plaintiff

Nippon Circuits Ltd.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contract/guarantee Debt / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the confirmation letter constituted a binding guarantee
  2. 2 Whether there was valid consideration for the guarantee
  3. 3 Whether the guarantee covered past and future purchase orders

Ratio Decidendi

The confirmation letter was a binding guarantee supported by valid consideration arising from the established commercial practice, the insurer's involvement and the plaintiff's forbearance and continued supply; its wording covered both past and future purchase orders and any ambiguity was construed against the defendant; the 14 January 2010 statement of account did not supersede or vary the guarantee; and the agency defence failed for lack of evidence. Judgment was therefore entered for the plaintiff for the claimed sum with interest and costs.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff

Orders

  • Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of 1,760,085.41
  • Interest to be paid by the defendant at the judgment rate from 21 June 2010 until payment