GITANES ENGINEERING CO LTD v. COWINDA LTD

GITANES ENGINEERING CO LTD v. COWINDA LTD

Judge found on balance of probabilities that the revised rates were agreed at the February meeting and that the seven unobjected fortnightly statements reflected the correct account; the $100,000 was part payment of the defendant's account not a third‑party deposit; accordingly plaintiff was entitled to judgment for the unpaid balance plus interest and costs.

Citation
GITANES ENGINEERING CO LTD v. COWINDA LTD
Parties
Plaintiff: Gitanes Engineering Co. Ltd.; Defendant: Cowinda Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 January 1985
Case Number
HCA11472/1982
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract / Judgment Delivered After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiff for HKD 545,755.45; defendant's counterclaim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Account Stated, Variation of Contract Terms, Set Off, Deposit Vs Part Payment, Interest on Judgment
Source Language
EN
Contract Commercial Debt Recovery Account Stated Variation of Contract Terms Set Off Deposit Vs Part Payment Interest on Judgment

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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gitanes Engineering Co. Ltd.

Plaintiff

Cowinda Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract / Judgment Delivered After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an oral contract existed and its terms including revised rates agreed on 12 February 1982
  2. 2 Whether periodic statements posted by the plaintiff constituted acceptance/account stated and bound the defendant
  3. 3 Whether the $100,000 payment was a deposit for a separate Vibro contract or part payment of the defendant's account

Ratio Decidendi

Judge found on balance of probabilities that the revised rates were agreed at the February meeting and that the seven unobjected fortnightly statements reflected the correct account; the $100,000 was part payment of the defendant's account not a third‑party deposit; accordingly plaintiff was entitled to judgment for the unpaid balance plus interest and costs.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiff for HKD 545,755.45; defendant's counterclaim dismissed.

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the plaintiff in the sum of HKD 545,755.45 with costs to the plaintiff
  • Defendant's counterclaim dismissed with costs to the plaintiff