SHARP ACE LTD. v. LI PING WAH PETER

SHARP ACE LTD. v. LI PING WAH PETER

Judge found plaintiff credible and defendant not credible; defendant accepted the revised quotation so liable for the contract price; additional works were authorised or agreed to be charged separately and are recoverable; defendant failed to prove defective workmanship or loss caused by delay on balance of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
SHARP ACE LTD. v. LI PING WAH PETER
Parties
Plaintiff: Sharp Ace Limited; Defendant: Li Ping Wah Peter
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
31 August 2001
Case Number
HCA6746/1998
Procedural Posture
Contract Claim (construction/decoration) / Judgment at First Instance
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff; counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Payment for Work and Materials, Variations and Additional Works, Defective Workmanship and Remedial Costs, Delay and Damages, Counterclaim, Interest and Costs, Admissibility and Weight of Expert Evidence
Source Language
en
Contract Construction Law Civil Procedure Evidence (expert) Payment for Work and Materials Variations and Additional Works Defective Workmanship and Remedial Costs Delay and Damages +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sharp Ace Limited

Plaintiff

Li Ping Wah Peter

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contract Claim (construction/decoration) / Judgment at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant accepted the revised written quotation and is liable for the balance claimed
  2. 2 Whether the additional works were authorised by the defendant and payable separately
  3. 3 Whether there was a binding contractual completion date and any recoverable loss from delay

Ratio Decidendi

Judge found plaintiff credible and defendant not credible; defendant accepted the revised quotation so liable for the contract price; additional works were authorised or agreed to be charged separately and are recoverable; defendant failed to prove defective workmanship or loss caused by delay on balance of probabilities and expert evidence relied upon by defendant (Mr Chan) was not sufficiently reliable; accordingly plaintiff entitled to balance of HK$212,850 with interest and costs; counterclaim dismissed.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff; counterclaim dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment for plaintiff in the sum of HK$212,850.00
  • Interest at 12% per annum from 29 April 1998 (date of writ) to date of judgment (31 August 2001) and thereafter at judgment rate until full payment