LONG EMPEROR LTD v. SCANWELL CONSOLIDATORS LTD AND ANOTHER

LONG EMPEROR LTD v. SCANWELL CONSOLIDATORS LTD AND ANOTHER

Both defendants breached their contractual obligations and were negligent in failing to ensure delivery to Dhaka; Hadley v. Baxendale second limb did not apply because defendants did not know of the specific downstream sales contracts, so lost profit claim failed; measure of damages is the invoice/cost value of the cotton yarn which became valueless (HK$185,685.24), less defendants' valid counterclaim (HK$13,355), producing a net judgment for the plaintiff of HK$172,330.24 plus interest.

Citation
LONG EMPEROR LTD v. SCANWELL CONSOLIDATORS LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Long Emperor Ltd; 1st Defendant: Scanwell Consolidators Ltd; 2nd Defendant: Scanwell Container Line Ltd
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 February 2004
Case Number
HCA2190/2002
Procedural Posture
Contract Dispute (maritime/bailment) / Judgment (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff in the net sum of HK$172,330.24; interest at 1% over Hong Kong prime from date of writ until date of judgment and thereafter at judgment rate; costs to be heard.
Legal Topics
Bill of Lading, Misdelivery, Hadley V. Baxendale Foreseeability, Anticipatory Repudiation, Set Off, Measure of Damages, Contract Interpretation
Source Language
EN
Contract Law Maritime Law Bailment Negligence Remedies Damages Bill of Lading Misdelivery Hadley V. Baxendale Foreseeability +4 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 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Long Emperor Ltd

Plaintiff

Scanwell Consolidators Ltd

1st Defendant

Scanwell Container Line Ltd

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contract Dispute (maritime/bailment) / Judgment (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st Defendant breached its contract to arrange carriage to Dhaka and was negligent
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd Defendant (carrier under the Bill of Lading) breached the contract of carriage and was negligent
  3. 3 Whether Bill of Lading clauses 4.1 and 6.4 exclude liability

Ratio Decidendi

Both defendants breached their contractual obligations and were negligent in failing to ensure delivery to Dhaka; Hadley v. Baxendale second limb did not apply because defendants did not know of the specific downstream sales contracts, so lost profit claim failed; measure of damages is the invoice/cost value of the cotton yarn which became valueless (HK$185,685.24), less defendants' valid counterclaim (HK$13,355), producing a net judgment for the plaintiff of HK$172,330.24 plus interest.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Plaintiff in the net sum of HK$172,330.24; interest at 1% over Hong Kong prime from date of writ until date of judgment and thereafter at judgment rate; costs to be heard.

Orders

  • Judgment for Plaintiff in the net amount of HK$172,330.24 (HK$185,685.24 minus HK$13,355)
  • Interest to run on that sum at 1% over Hong Kong prime from date of writ until date of judgment and thereafter at the judgment rate