PEGGY P. LIU formerly t/a FUNG & LIU v. ALFA COM.TECHNOLOGY LTD

PEGGY P. LIU formerly t/a FUNG & LIU v. ALFA COM.TECHNOLOGY LTD

The Court upheld the deputy adjudicator's finding that the claimant breached the contract and rejected the misrepresentation ground because any representation related only to system configuration and post-contract events were inadmissible to prove pre-contract misrepresentation; however the award of the full balance (HK$40,000) was set aside because there was no proper assessment or evidence of actual loss and the nature of the contract (goods vs services or mixed) had not been determined — the matter is remitted for assessment.

Citation
PEGGY P. LIU formerly t/a FUNG & LIU v. ALFA COM.TECHNOLOGY LTD
Parties
Claimant (appellant): Peggy Fung Liu; Defendant (respondent): ALFA COM. TECHNOLOGY LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 December 2006
Case Number
HCSA9/2006
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Tribunal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; deputy adjudicator's finding of breach upheld; award of defendant's counterclaim set aside and remitted for reassessment; no order as to costs (order nisi).
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Assessment of Damages, Nature of Contract (goods or Services), Admissibility of Hearsay, Remittal for Further Assessment
Source Language
EN
Contract Law Misrepresentation Damages Sale of Goods Vs Services Software Licensing Assessment of Damages Nature of Contract (goods or Services) Admissibility of Hearsay +1 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peggy Fung Liu

Claimant (appellant)

ALFA COM. TECHNOLOGY LIMITED

Defendant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Tribunal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an unqualified pre-contractual representation was made that the software could be installed
  2. 2 Whether the claimant validly rescinded the contract for misrepresentation
  3. 3 Admissibility and weight of hearsay evidence (Ms Chan)

Ratio Decidendi

The Court upheld the deputy adjudicator's finding that the claimant breached the contract and rejected the misrepresentation ground because any representation related only to system configuration and post-contract events were inadmissible to prove pre-contract misrepresentation; however the award of the full balance (HK$40,000) was set aside because there was no proper assessment or evidence of actual loss and the nature of the contract (goods vs services or mixed) had not been determined — the matter is remitted for assessment.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; deputy adjudicator's finding of breach upheld; award of defendant's counterclaim set aside and remitted for reassessment; no order as to costs (order nisi).

Orders

  • Award allowing defendant's counterclaim in full set aside
  • Defendant's counterclaim remitted to the deputy adjudicator or another adjudicator of the Small Claims Tribunal for assessment