Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Delivery delay

Legal area

Court

1 Sept 2015

FASTWAY TECHNOLOGY LTD v. S.H.T. ELECTRONIC TECHNOLOGY CO LTD

Citation

FASTWAY TECHNOLOGY LTD v. S.H.T. ELECTRONIC TECHNOLOGY CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA575/2011

The court found the parties were bound by the MA or had intended it to be binding; there was no proven oral variation of payment terms; the Defendant breached the contracts by refusing to deliver and unreasonably delaying production (including failing to confirm ordering of replacement ICs) and unlawfully detained the Plaintiff's IC components (conversion). Consequently the Defendant must repay deposits and pay damages for conversion; the counterclaim is dismissed.
23 Apr 2013

LONGSMART CORPORATION LTD v. SEATOMAN HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

LONGSMART CORPORATION LTD v. SEATOMAN HOLDINGS LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ270/2011

The court found the parties' historic practice required signed purchase orders to bind terms; the April 2010 POs and alleged June 22 revisions were not signed and the parties renegotiated terms by oral/email communications; Longsmart did not accept liability for the 15 August 2010 shipment date and was not contractually obliged to indemnify Seatoman for airfreight or suffer the penalty; accordingly Longsmart proved its claim and is owed US$19,886.82 while Seatoman's counterclaim is dismissed.
1 Feb 2008

TIME DEVELOP LTD v. PROFIT WINNING LTD

Citation

TIME DEVELOP LTD v. PROFIT WINNING LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3859/2005

The court found as a fact that Profit Winning, not Sky Ocean, was the contracting buyer; delivery delays were predominantly caused by Profit Winning's failure to open the letter of credit; the quality complaints were unpleaded, inadequately disclosed and unsupported so did not defeat the claim; accordingly judgment for Time Develop for US$70,128.21 with interest and costs was entered.
21 Jun 2006

VIA INTERNATIONAL LTD v. KARREX (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

VIA INTERNATIONAL LTD v. KARREX (HONG KONG) LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3315/2005

The court found on the evidence that the parties reached a settlement regarding the clear DVD cases and the defendant was not entitled to damages on that ground, but that there was a real prospect of success on the defendant's counterclaim for delay because a contract was likely formed when the defendant transferred US$50,000 (around 13/8/2004) and the plaintiff failed to meet agreed delivery dates; accordingly the default judgment dated 16/8/2005 was set aside and execution of the garnishee order stayed.
16 Sept 2005

KRYSTAL ARTFIELD INTERNATIONAL LTD v. WANCORD GARMENT FACTORY LTD

Citation

KRYSTAL ARTFIELD INTERNATIONAL LTD v. WANCORD GARMENT FACTORY LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6372/2003

The court found the Plaintiff complied with the contractual terms and that the Defendant accepted delivery without timely written claims; the Defendant failed to prove a binding agreement to discount the contract sums and failed to quantify its counterclaim. Accordingly judgment is entered for the Plaintiff for HK$78,993.97 with interest and costs.
29 Jul 2004

BOLD EAGLE LTD v. EASTERN INTERNATIONAL SILK CO LTD

Citation

BOLD EAGLE LTD v. EASTERN INTERNATIONAL SILK CO LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2810/2003

Judge found on the evidence that Tillsonburg caused the delay (samples were approved at Tillsonburg's request and deadlines were varied or adopted), and that the Defendant failed to prove the alleged defects because the evidence was hearsay and insufficient; accordingly the Defendant's counterclaim was dismissed and judgment entered for the Plaintiff for the unpaid balance with interest and costs.
12 Jun 2003

CHENG YING HUNG t/a PO SHING CO v. YUEN CHAK CONSTRUCTION CO LTD

Citation

CHENG YING HUNG t/a PO SHING CO v. YUEN CHAK CONSTRUCTION CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA411/2001

Judge preferred plaintiff's and delivery driver's credible evidence, found no proven delays in 1999, no fresh supply agreement of January 2000, payments to 23 August 2000 were final settlement for January–June 2000, and delivery records constituted prima facie proof of supply and quantity; therefore plaintiff owed balance and defendant's counterclaim failed.

Hong Kong Case Law

FASTWAY TECHNOLOGY LTD v. S.H.T. ELECTRONIC TECHNOLOGY CO LTD

LONGSMART CORPORATION LTD v. SEATOMAN HOLDINGS LTD

TIME DEVELOP LTD v. PROFIT WINNING LTD

VIA INTERNATIONAL LTD v. KARREX (HONG KONG) LTD

KRYSTAL ARTFIELD INTERNATIONAL LTD v. WANCORD GARMENT FACTORY LTD

BOLD EAGLE LTD v. EASTERN INTERNATIONAL SILK CO LTD

CHENG YING HUNG t/a PO SHING CO v. YUEN CHAK CONSTRUCTION CO LTD