YOSHIDA JAPANESE FOOD LTD v. CHEONG KEE SPECIAL FOOD PRODUCT LTD

YOSHIDA JAPANESE FOOD LTD v. CHEONG KEE SPECIAL FOOD PRODUCT LTD

The court found on the evidence that the Defendant unilaterally breached the Agreement. The contract between the Plaintiff and T & T required the Defendant's branded goods and CFIA clearance so no available market for substitutes existed; consequently the Plaintiff could not mitigate by purchasing elsewhere and is entitled to recover loss of profits of $138,208 plus interest and costs.

Citation
YOSHIDA JAPANESE FOOD LTD v. CHEONG KEE SPECIAL FOOD PRODUCT LTD
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Defendant: Defendant
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
25 August 2008
Case Number
DCCJ3287/2006
Procedural Posture
Breach of Contract (sale of Goods) / Judgment (trial at First Instance)
Outcome
Judgment for the Plaintiff
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Mitigation of Loss, Loss of Profits on Resale, Market Availability, Credibility of Witnesses, Import/export Regulatory Risk
Source Language
EN
Contract Law Commercial Law Sale of Goods Remedies (damages) Breach of Contract Mitigation of Loss Loss of Profits on Resale Market Availability +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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Breach of Contract (sale of Goods) / Judgment (trial at First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Agreement was cancelled unilaterally by the Defendant or by mutual consent
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff had an available market to mitigate its loss by obtaining substitute goods
  3. 3 Whether the contract between the Plaintiff and its buyer (T & T) required goods of the Defendant's brand and CFIA clearance, such that substitution was impossible

Ratio Decidendi

The court found on the evidence that the Defendant unilaterally breached the Agreement. The contract between the Plaintiff and T & T required the Defendant's branded goods and CFIA clearance so no available market for substitutes existed; consequently the Plaintiff could not mitigate by purchasing elsewhere and is entitled to recover loss of profits of $138,208 plus interest and costs.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Plaintiff

Orders

  • Defendant to pay the Plaintiff $138,208 within 14 days
  • Interest at judgment rate from 7.5.2006 until satisfaction