KONWALL CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING CO LTD v. STRONG PROGRESS LTD

KONWALL CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING CO LTD v. STRONG PROGRESS LTD

On objective construction of the Sales Contract against the admissible factual matrix the Project Clause did not restrict supply to Plaintiff's own projects; Remark 1 refers to any single delivery equal to or over 1,000 MT at a time (not an aggregate per project requiring one month notice); no implied Notification or Delivery terms were necessary or warranted; defendant had no contractual basis to refuse the subject deliveries and was liable for damages measured by the market/contract price differential, awarded at HK$9,091,162.21.

Citation
KONWALL CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING CO LTD v. STRONG PROGRESS LTD
Parties
Plaintiff: Konwall Construction & Engineering Co., Ltd.; Defendant: Strong Progress Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 June 2013
Case Number
HCA1871/2010
Procedural Posture
Sale of Goods / Breach of Contract / Judgment (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiff
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Contract, Implied Terms, Damages for Non Delivery, Admissibility of Without Prejudice Communications and Pre Contractual Negotiations, Mitigation of Loss, Remoteness of Damage
Source Language
EN
Contract Law Sale of Goods Commercial Law Evidence Interpretation of Contract Implied Terms Damages for Non Delivery Admissibility of Without Prejudice Communications and Pre Contractual Negotiations +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 7 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Konwall Construction & Engineering Co., Ltd.

Plaintiff

Strong Progress Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Sale of Goods / Breach of Contract / Judgment (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Interpretation of the Project Clause (whether supply limited to Plaintiff's own projects)
  2. 2 Interpretation of the Single Delivery Clause (meaning of "any single delivery equal to or over 1,000 mt")
  3. 3 Whether an implied Delivery term (reasonableness/manifest unreasonableness limiting 24-hour notice) exists

Ratio Decidendi

On objective construction of the Sales Contract against the admissible factual matrix the Project Clause did not restrict supply to Plaintiff's own projects; Remark 1 refers to any single delivery equal to or over 1,000 MT at a time (not an aggregate per project requiring one month notice); no implied Notification or Delivery terms were necessary or warranted; defendant had no contractual basis to refuse the subject deliveries and was liable for damages measured by the market/contract price differential, awarded at HK$9,091,162.21.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiff

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the Plaintiff against the Defendant in the sum HK$9,091,162.21
  • Order nisi that the Defendant pay the Plaintiff's costs to be taxed if not agreed