曾氏工程公司 v. 林慧嫻

曾氏工程公司 v. 林慧嫻

The judge preferred plaintiff's and corroborating witness evidence over the defendant's, found the parties agreed to the Quotation price of $473,000 and authorized the listed demolition/disposal, concluded time was not made of the essence, found delays were attributable to the defendant's changes (tiles) and not breach by plaintiff, held the defendant was not lawfully entitled to require faxed identity card copies as a precondition for returning tools and had wrongfully retained tools, dismissed the defendant's counterclaim, and awarded the plaintiff damages totaling $122,478.20 plus interest and costs.

Citation
曾氏工程公司 v. 林慧嫻
Parties
Plaintiff: Tsang's Engineering; Defendant: Ms Lam
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 July 2015
Case Number
DCCJ3596/2011
Procedural Posture
Contract Dispute (renovation Contract) / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiff; defendant's counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Repudiation, Time of the Essence, Disposal of Goods/authorization, Conversion/retention of Tools, Damages Valuation, Credibility of Witnesses, Court Costs, Interest
Source Language
EN
Contract Law Property/possessory Rights Civil Evidence Remedies/damages Costs Breach of Contract Repudiation Time of the Essence +6 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 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tsang's Engineering

Plaintiff

Ms Lam

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contract Dispute (renovation Contract) / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Were the terms and price in the quotation agreed?
  2. 2 Was defendant authorized to demolish/dispose items in Schedule 2?
  3. 3 Was time of the essence (68 days)?

Ratio Decidendi

The judge preferred plaintiff's and corroborating witness evidence over the defendant's, found the parties agreed to the Quotation price of $473,000 and authorized the listed demolition/disposal, concluded time was not made of the essence, found delays were attributable to the defendant's changes (tiles) and not breach by plaintiff, held the defendant was not lawfully entitled to require faxed identity card copies as a precondition for returning tools and had wrongfully retained tools, dismissed the defendant's counterclaim, and awarded the plaintiff damages totaling $122,478.20 plus interest and costs.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiff; defendant's counterclaim dismissed

Orders

  • Defendant to pay plaintiff damages of 122478.20 HKD
  • Damages to bear interest at judgment rate from date of issuance of the writ of summons until full payment