HUI CHU WING t/a YAU LUEN AIR-CONDITIONING ENGINEERING CO v. WORLD TREND ENGINEERING LTD

HUI CHU WING t/a YAU LUEN AIR-CONDITIONING ENGINEERING CO v. WORLD TREND ENGINEERING LTD

The judge accepted the plaintiff’s evidence that the work described in the five invoices was performed and that the invoices were payable when issued; the defendant’s contrary evidence was not credible and commercial sense supports payment during the project rather than deferral of negotiation, therefore judgment for the plaintiff for $106,250 and costs and interest.

Citation
HUI CHU WING t/a YAU LUEN AIR-CONDITIONING ENGINEERING CO v. WORLD TREND ENGINEERING LTD
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Defendant: Defendant
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 September 2005
Case Number
DCCJ1442/2004
Procedural Posture
Contract (debt Recovery) / Judgment (deputy District Judge)
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff for $106,250.
Legal Topics
Quantum of Payment, Subcontracting, Contract Variations, Part Payment, Acceptance of Invoices, Interest on Judgment
Source Language
EN
Contract Debt Recovery Construction/building Contracts Commercial Law Quantum of Payment Subcontracting Contract Variations Part Payment +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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contract (debt Recovery) / Judgment (deputy District Judge)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff performed the contracted work covered by five invoices
  2. 2 Whether the defendant was liable to pay the invoiced amounts or whether the invoices were subject to post-completion negotiation
  3. 3 Whether part payments made by the defendant constituted full settlement

Ratio Decidendi

The judge accepted the plaintiff’s evidence that the work described in the five invoices was performed and that the invoices were payable when issued; the defendant’s contrary evidence was not credible and commercial sense supports payment during the project rather than deferral of negotiation, therefore judgment for the plaintiff for $106,250 and costs and interest.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff for $106,250.

Orders

  • Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $106,250.
  • Costs in favour of the plaintiff, to be taxed if not agreed.