LITE ON ELECTRONICS H.K. LTD v. VANTAGE TECHNOLOGIES LTD AND OTHERS

LITE ON ELECTRONICS H.K. LTD v. VANTAGE TECHNOLOGIES LTD AND OTHERS

Plaintiff proved that defendants represented the software was fit for plaintiff's purposes, plaintiff relied on those representations and provided requirements, the software repeatedly failed to perform despite attempts to remedy, and defendants (absent at trial) did not discharge the statutory burden under s.3...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
LITE ON ELECTRONICS H.K. LTD v. VANTAGE TECHNOLOGIES LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: LITE ON ELECTRONICS H.K. LIMITED; 1st Defendant: VANTAGE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED Trading as RADEX GROUP; 2nd Defendant: RADEX PACIFIC LIMITED; 3rd Defendant: RADEX LIMITED
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 July 2006
Case Number
DCCJ3238/2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim for Sale and Purchase of Software / Breach of Contract and Misrepresentation / Judgment After Trial (district Court)
Outcome
Judgment for the Plaintiff; Defendants jointly and severally liable; Defendants' counterclaim dismissed; Costs awarded to Plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Software Sale, Breach of Contract, Misrepresentation Under Statute, Remedies, Costs
Source Language
en
Contract Misrepresentation Commercial/commercial Litigation Software Sale Breach of Contract Misrepresentation Under Statute Remedies Costs

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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LITE ON ELECTRONICS H.K. LIMITED

Plaintiff

VANTAGE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED Trading as RADEX GROUP

1st Defendant

RADEX PACIFIC LIMITED

2nd Defendant

RADEX LIMITED

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Claim for Sale and Purchase of Software / Breach of Contract and Misrepresentation / Judgment After Trial (district Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants breached the agreements for sale, customization and support of Opera II
  2. 2 Whether the defendants made representations as to fitness for purpose that induced the plaintiff to enter the agreements
  3. 3 Whether the defendants discharged the burden under s.3 of the Misrepresentation Ordinance (Cap.284) to show reasonable grounds for belief

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff proved that defendants represented the software was fit for plaintiff's purposes, plaintiff relied on those representations and provided requirements, the software repeatedly failed to perform despite attempts to remedy, and defendants (absent at trial) did not discharge the statutory burden under s.3 Cap.284; therefore defendants were liable and judgment was entered for the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Plaintiff; Defendants jointly and severally liable; Defendants' counterclaim dismissed; Costs awarded to Plaintiff.

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the Plaintiff in the sum of $189,099
  • Defendants jointly and severally liable for the claims