Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Damages for non‑delivery

Legal area

Court

6 Nov 2020

SWEETSTAR ASIA LTD AND ANOTHER v. INFRALUTIONS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2794
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1048/2020

The Statement of Claim disclosed a good cause of action only for breach by the 1st Defendant for non-delivery of the goods; on RHC O.19 r.7 the court entered default judgment against the 1st Defendant for damages to be assessed under section 53 of the Sale of Goods Ordinance. The SOC did not sufficiently plead actionable fraudulent misrepresentation, adequate particulars of fraud, enforceable personal liability of D2 on promissory notes, or a properly pleaded basis for constructive trust and tracing against D1 or D3, so the remaining relief sought was refused and the summons was stood over to…
28 Jun 2013

KONWALL CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING CO LTD v. STRONG PROGRESS LTD

Citation

KONWALL CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING CO LTD v. STRONG PROGRESS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1871/2010

On objective construction of the Sales Contract against the admissible factual matrix the Project Clause did not restrict supply to Plaintiff's own projects; Remark 1 refers to any single delivery equal to or over 1,000 MT at a time (not an aggregate per project requiring one month notice); no implied Notification or Delivery terms were necessary or warranted; defendant had no contractual basis to refuse the subject deliveries and was liable for damages measured by the market/contract price differential, awarded at HK$9,091,162.21.
19 May 2010

DRAGON WINGS COMMUNICATIONS LTD AND ANOTHER v. FINTEL GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

DRAGON WINGS COMMUNICATIONS LTD AND ANOTHER v. FINTEL GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3251/2008

Where defendants breached by failing to deliver tradable and additional MKAC shares, damages are quantified by reference to market price on the dates of breach (18 September 2006 and 1 June 2007). Applying that rule, the court awarded USD84,721.05 to the 1st Plaintiff and USD50,832.90 to the 2nd Plaintiff, with joint and several liability, interest and costs as ordered.
21 Jun 1999

PANACHAND & CO. PTE. LTD. v. POON LEE MENG t/a HIAP HENG CO. (a firm)

Citation

PANACHAND & CO. PTE. LTD. v. POON LEE MENG t/a HIAP HENG CO. (a firm)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV12/1989

Appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that condition 12 was incorporated into any of the three contracts; the parties' oral and telex communications together with deletions on the signed forms demonstrate the printed conditions were not part of the contracts, so the trial judgment awarding damages for non‑delivery is affirmed.
26 Jun 1996

RUDICK INTERNATIONAL LTD v. HOIDA INDUSTRIAL CO LTD

Citation

RUDICK INTERNATIONAL LTD v. HOIDA INDUSTRIAL CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL172/1994

The court held the Defendant had assumed responsibility to keep the materials and goods for the Plaintiff but was only obliged to make them available for collection and not to provide the inventory details or to deliver; the alleged promise of 31 March 1994 lacked consideration and was not a binding contract; consequential loss claimed (US$71,333.32) was too remote because no replacement order was in contemplation when the original order was cancelled; Plaintiff proved missing and defective items and was entitled to HK$65,944.74; Defendant failed to prove its counterclaim for storage charges.
21 Jul 1987

HA WAI t/a WAI YIP IMPORT AND EXPORT TRADING (H.K.) CO v. SANYEI CORPORATION HONG KONG LTD

Citation

HA WAI t/a WAI YIP IMPORT AND EXPORT TRADING (H.K.) CO v. SANYEI CORPORATION HONG KONG LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV16/1987

The appeal was dismissed because the Plaintiff failed to prove any variation of the original contract; the trial judge's adverse credibility findings were entitled to deference and there was no basis to order a retrial or permit amendment on appeal.
6 Feb 1986

HONG KONG HANDARTS CO. PTY. CO. v. MATRIX INDUSTRIES LTD

Citation

HONG KONG HANDARTS CO. PTY. CO. v. MATRIX INDUSTRIES LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA8147/1983

The plaintiff failed to prove that the art work payment was part of a composite contract making it refundable, so the HK$6,740 claim fails; the defendant failed to prove manufacture and quantum of loss for the full counterclaim, but is entitled to loss of profit in principle and an enquiry is ordered to determine that amount if not agreed.

Hong Kong Case Law

SWEETSTAR ASIA LTD AND ANOTHER v. INFRALUTIONS LTD AND OTHERS

KONWALL CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING CO LTD v. STRONG PROGRESS LTD

DRAGON WINGS COMMUNICATIONS LTD AND ANOTHER v. FINTEL GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER

PANACHAND & CO. PTE. LTD. v. POON LEE MENG t/a HIAP HENG CO. (a firm)

RUDICK INTERNATIONAL LTD v. HOIDA INDUSTRIAL CO LTD

HA WAI t/a WAI YIP IMPORT AND EXPORT TRADING (H.K.) CO v. SANYEI CORPORATION HONG KONG LTD

HONG KONG HANDARTS CO. PTY. CO. v. MATRIX INDUSTRIES LTD