GREIG MACPHERSON v. LI CHI KIN t/a KIN SHING MOTORS CO AND ANOTHER

GREIG MACPHERSON v. LI CHI KIN t/a KIN SHING MOTORS CO AND ANOTHER

The court preferred the plaintiff's credible evidence that the dealer had agreed a parts and labour six‑month warranty and a 90% part‑exchange option which the plaintiff validly attempted to exercise; the dealer repudiated the obligation by failing to present a reasonable selection and is liable for the shortfall between 90% of the original purchase price and the plaintiff's sale proceeds, less amounts the plaintiff failed to reserve by compromise; accordingly judgment for plaintiff against the 1st Defendant for HKD 72,500 and claim against the 2nd Defendant dismissed.

Citation
GREIG MACPHERSON v. LI CHI KIN t/a KIN SHING MOTORS CO AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Greig Macpherson; 1st Defendant: Li Chi Kin trading as Kin Shing Motors Company; 2nd Defendant: Wayfoong Credit Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 July 1985
Case Number
HCA6071/1984
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract Dispute (warranty and Part‑exchange) / Judgment (trial)
Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff against 1st Defendant in the sum of HKD 72,500; claim against 2nd Defendant dismissed; costs of 2nd Defendant to be borne by Plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Express Warranty, Part Exchange Option, Agency and Disclosed Principal, Mitigation of Loss, Calculation of Damages
Source Language
EN
Contract Law Sale and Supply of Goods Agency Hire Purchase Remedies and Damages Express Warranty Part Exchange Option Agency and Disclosed Principal +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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Greig Macpherson

Plaintiff

Li Chi Kin trading as Kin Shing Motors Company

1st Defendant

Wayfoong Credit Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract Dispute (warranty and Part‑exchange) / Judgment (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the six‑month warranty included parts as well as labour
  2. 2 Whether the warranty/agreement to repurchase was with the dealer or the finance house (agency/disclosed principal)
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff validly exercised the option to trade in within the agreed period

Ratio Decidendi

The court preferred the plaintiff's credible evidence that the dealer had agreed a parts and labour six‑month warranty and a 90% part‑exchange option which the plaintiff validly attempted to exercise; the dealer repudiated the obligation by failing to present a reasonable selection and is liable for the shortfall between 90% of the original purchase price and the plaintiff's sale proceeds, less amounts the plaintiff failed to reserve by compromise; accordingly judgment for plaintiff against the 1st Defendant for HKD 72,500 and claim against the 2nd Defendant dismissed.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Plaintiff against 1st Defendant in the sum of HKD 72,500; claim against 2nd Defendant dismissed; costs of 2nd Defendant to be borne by Plaintiff.

Orders

  • Judgment for Plaintiff against 1st Defendant in the sum of HKD 72,500.
  • Claim against Wayfoong Credit Limited (2nd Defendant) dismissed.