Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Acceptance and delivery

Legal area

Court

22 Aug 2008

GLOBAL HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTS LTD v. MICO ELECTRIC (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

GLOBAL HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTS LTD v. MICO ELECTRIC (HONG KONG) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1762/2005

The court found the alleged defects were minor, idiosyncratic or the product of improper testing and did not render the televisions unmerchantable or unfit for purpose; the defendant had instructed production and arranged inspection so its later refusal amounted to wrongful repudiation; judgment entered for plaintiff for agreed damages of US$170,576.91 with costs.
21 Aug 2007

TUNG KEE GARDEN HORTICULTURE LTD v. WONG WANG TAT t/a TSUI PARK GARDEN

Citation

TUNG KEE GARDEN HORTICULTURE LTD v. WONG WANG TAT t/a TSUI PARK GARDEN
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2699/2005

On the evidence the Plaintiff supplied specifications and shop drawings, inspected and accepted samples, arranged transport and took delivery; the Plaintiff did not rely on the Defendant's skill or judgment to require metal reinforcement; the alleged warranties were signed under pressure and without valid consideration and painting was not contracted for. Therefore the Defendant did not breach implied fitness/merchantable quality terms and the Plaintiff's claim fails; the Defendant's counterclaim for unpaid sums succeeds.
27 May 1986

KENNETH KO DESIGNS LIMITED v. FULLRATE ENTERPRISES LIMITED

Citation

KENNETH KO DESIGNS LIMITED v. FULLRATE ENTERPRISES LIMITED
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4276/1985

Defendant entitled to remedial costs where defects proved and reasonable; judge assessed each defect on evidence and awarded cost of remedy for the warped floor corner ($5,500), repainting ($6,500), compensation for omission of gypsum backing ($15,160 reduced by proven extra work $344 to $14,816) and nominal loss for disruption ($1,000), rejecting broader loss of profit claims and some alleged defects as either not proved or not materially affecting use; net judgment for defendant $27,816.
7 May 1975

K. ALOOMALL (HK) LTD v. HOUFIELD & CO (A FIRM)

Citation

K. ALOOMALL (HK) LTD v. HOUFIELD & CO (A FIRM)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1720/1974

The judge accepted the plaintiff's evidence, rejected the defendant's claim of oral cancellation and of late delivery, found defendant in breach for not taking delivery or paying, held plaintiff lawfully mitigated by resale and awarded damages quantified by the unchallenged schedule: $36,635.29 plus costs and interest at 8% per annum.

Hong Kong Case Law

GLOBAL HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTS LTD v. MICO ELECTRIC (HONG KONG) LTD

TUNG KEE GARDEN HORTICULTURE LTD v. WONG WANG TAT t/a TSUI PARK GARDEN

KENNETH KO DESIGNS LIMITED v. FULLRATE ENTERPRISES LIMITED

K. ALOOMALL (HK) LTD v. HOUFIELD & CO (A FIRM)