YEE FAT PRINTING EQUIPMENT LTD. v. ARTECH PRINTING LTD.

YEE FAT PRINTING EQUIPMENT LTD. v. ARTECH PRINTING LTD.

The contract was a sale by description; the stated year of manufacture (1989) formed part of that description and was materially misdescribed (actual year 1985); Artech was dealing as a consumer under the Control of Exceptions Ordinance so condition 7 could not be relied on to exclude liability; therefore Yee Fat was in breach, Artech was entitled to rescind and recover the deposit with interest.

Citation
YEE FAT PRINTING EQUIPMENT LTD. v. ARTECH PRINTING LTD.
Parties
Plaintiff (hca 6053/1997); Defendant (hca 8590/1997): Artech Printing Limited; Defendant (hca 6053/1997); Plaintiff (hca 8590/1997): Yee Fat Printing Equipment Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 January 2000
Case Number
HCA8590/1997
Procedural Posture
Contract Dispute Sale of Goods / Judgment (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiff Artech Printing Limited; defendant Yee Fat Printing Equipment Limited's counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Misdescription, Implied Condition S15 SGO, Control of Exceptions Ordinance S11(2), Rescission, Deposit Recovery, Interest
Source Language
EN
Contract Law Sale of Goods Consumer Protection Contract Interpretation Remedies Misdescription Implied Condition S15 SGO Control of Exceptions Ordinance S11(2) +3 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Artech Printing Limited

Plaintiff (hca 6053/1997); Defendant (hca 8590/1997)

Yee Fat Printing Equipment Limited

Defendant (hca 6053/1997); Plaintiff (hca 8590/1997)

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contract was for a specific machine identified by serial number
  2. 2 Whether Yee Fat made a misrepresentation that induced Artech to contract
  3. 3 Whether the sale was a sale by description under s15(1) Sale of Goods Ordinance

Ratio Decidendi

The contract was a sale by description; the stated year of manufacture (1989) formed part of that description and was materially misdescribed (actual year 1985); Artech was dealing as a consumer under the Control of Exceptions Ordinance so condition 7 could not be relied on to exclude liability; therefore Yee Fat was in breach, Artech was entitled to rescind and recover the deposit with interest.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiff Artech Printing Limited; defendant Yee Fat Printing Equipment Limited's counterclaim dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of HKD 216000
  • Interest at 8% per annum from 15 May 1997 to date of judgment (sum awarded HKD 46774)