OTIS ELEVATOR CO (HK) LTD v. CHEUNG YIP CHUEN DAVID

OTIS ELEVATOR CO (HK) LTD v. CHEUNG YIP CHUEN DAVID

Defendant signed and accepted the written quotation and made payments, establishing liability on the contract; even if he purported to act as agent for Four Seas he remained liable as contracting party; the defendant failed to particularise or quantify alleged defects and losses, so no proper set‑off could be assessed; permits were obtained making the balance payable. Therefore summary judgment was appropriate and judgment for the contract sum was granted.

Citation
OTIS ELEVATOR CO (HK) LTD v. CHEUNG YIP CHUEN DAVID
Parties
Plaintiff: Otis Elevator Company (HK) Limited; Defendant: Cheung Yip Chuen David
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 July 2007
Case Number
DCCJ5316/2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract Claim (summary Judgment Application) / Application for Summary Judgment (inter Partes Summons)
Outcome
Summary judgment granted for the plaintiff for the contract sum; counterclaim allowed to proceed separately
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Contract Formation, Agency Liability, Set Off and Counterclaim, Performance and Defects, Costs and Interest
Source Language
EN
Contract Law Civil Procedure Commercial Law Agency Law Summary Judgment Contract Formation Agency Liability Set Off and Counterclaim +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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Otis Elevator Company (HK) Limited

Plaintiff

Cheung Yip Chuen David

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract Claim (summary Judgment Application) / Application for Summary Judgment (inter Partes Summons)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant was a contracting party or merely an agent for Four Seas Industrial Company Limited
  2. 2 Whether the defendant is liable for the contract price evidenced by a signed quotation
  3. 3 Whether the defendant is entitled to set-off for alleged defective or incomplete works absent particulars and quantification

Ratio Decidendi

Defendant signed and accepted the written quotation and made payments, establishing liability on the contract; even if he purported to act as agent for Four Seas he remained liable as contracting party; the defendant failed to particularise or quantify alleged defects and losses, so no proper set‑off could be assessed; permits were obtained making the balance payable. Therefore summary judgment was appropriate and judgment for the contract sum was granted.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted for the plaintiff for the contract sum; counterclaim allowed to proceed separately

Orders

  • Summary judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $680,000
  • Interest at half judgment rate from date of writ to date of judgment and thereafter at full judgment rate