Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Delivery obligations

Legal area

Court

10 Jul 2009

MG OVERSEAS LTD v. YARNTEX MILL LTD

Citation

MG OVERSEAS LTD v. YARNTEX MILL LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3481/2007

Court found there were two separate and independent contracts with distinct delivery dates; delivery for the first contract was due on 6 July 2007 (14 days from receipt of payment on 22 June 2007); the Defendant failed to deliver and wrongfully declined to perform thereafter; Defendant's arguments about a single contract, Plaintiff's alleged obstructive conduct, and cheque presentation delaying the delivery period were rejected; judgment entered for Plaintiff for refund and interest.
30 Jul 2007

UBS SECURITIES ASIA LTD v. MULTEC INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

UBS SECURITIES ASIA LTD v. MULTEC INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA672/2007

The defendant had no credible triable defence on liability or quantum: contemporaneous communications established the defendant knew the shares were sold and was obliged to deliver; there was no unequivocal repudiation until defendant failed to deliver after the demand, fixing the breach date as 5 January 2007; the plaintiff acted reasonably in buying-in shares and mitigation was satisfied; accordingly summary judgment is appropriate.
7 Jun 2000

FORCHANCE TEXTILE CO. LTD. v. SAME RICH LTD. t/a HONG KONG TEXTILE CO.

Citation

FORCHANCE TEXTILE CO. LTD. v. SAME RICH LTD. t/a HONG KONG TEXTILE CO.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA10011/1996

The court found on the facts that the defendant's instructions, refusal to accept deliveries and failure to accept LC discrepancies caused the delivery delays; the plaintiff was not responsible for non‑delivery of the balance; the defendant failed to establish a causal link or proof for its counterclaim; accordingly judgment entered for plaintiff for HK$387,543 with interest and the counterclaim was dismissed.
5 Feb 1997

ELITE PRECISION MACHINERY CO. LTD. v. VINCENT PRECISION MACHINERY CO. LTD.

Citation

ELITE PRECISION MACHINERY CO. LTD. v. VINCENT PRECISION MACHINERY CO. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA6759/1994

Defendant had no good cause to delay tendering delivery or to impose further informational conditions; that conduct constituted a fundamental repudiatory breach which plaintiff validly accepted, thereby terminating the contract and entitling plaintiff to a refund of the purchase price with interest and costs.
11 Jan 1991

ZEGO LTD v. VALDIVIA LTD

Citation

ZEGO LTD v. VALDIVIA LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV138/1990

Because the plaintiff, having elected to affirm the contract after alleged repudiation, failed to show readiness and willingness to pay or to tender performance, the deputy judge correctly concluded there was no breach by the defendant and dismissed the claim.
3 May 1990

FONG YIU TAO HA KUN FAT HONG v. LINPO INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

FONG YIU TAO HA KUN FAT HONG v. LINPO INTERNATIONAL LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV183/1989

The Court held that the amended letter of credit together with the parties' conduct justified inferring an agreement to extend delivery to 2 February, that there was a breach when delivery was not made, and that damages should be assessed by reference to the market price around 2 February (as supported by witness evidence and invoices); the appeal was dismissed.
22 Jun 1987

YEU SHING CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. PIONEER CONCRETE (HK) LTD

Citation

YEU SHING CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. PIONEER CONCRETE (HK) LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV36/1987

The Court held that the Quotation Acceptance created a binding bilateral contract with consideration and that Clause 9(A) relates to non-delivery or late delivery of individual orders rather than permitting total renunciation of the whole contract; therefore Clause 9 does not exempt the suppliers from liability for total repudiation and the appeal must be allowed restoring the Master's order.
18 Mar 1986

VIKAY INTERNATIONAL (H.K) LTD v. KIN SON ELECTRONIC LTD

Citation

VIKAY INTERNATIONAL (H.K) LTD v. KIN SON ELECTRONIC LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4059/1985

Defendants waived the right to terminate by accepting deposits and deliveries and did not validly repudiate until 3 July 1985; by that date there was no available market so damages are assessed by estimating the value of the undelivered goods at breach (US$40,000) and awarding contract price for undelivered goods less deposit less that value, resulting in judgment for plaintiff for US$75,200 with interest and costs; defendant's counterclaim dismissed.
21 Dec 1978

YUEN FUNG METAL WORKS LTD v. KUEHNE & NAGEL (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

YUEN FUNG METAL WORKS LTD v. KUEHNE & NAGEL (HONG KONG) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3472/1977

The court held the defendants were carriers as a matter of contract by issuing through bills of lading in their own name; delivery of the goods to the consignee without production of the bill of lading was a fundamental breach that prevented the defendants from relying on exemption clauses; plaintiff was entitled to recover damages for loss caused, assessed at HK$222,817.92.
28 Nov 1977

YUEN CHEONC TIMBER CO (A FIRM) v. WONG KWAN

Citation

YUEN CHEONC TIMBER CO (A FIRM) v. WONG KWAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2356/1976

The court preferred the plaintiff's evidence: the parties agreed price $22.50/cu.ft and payment against each delivery as an essential term; deliveries evidenced by delivery notes and invoices were made as found; the defendant repudiated the contracts by persistent refusal to pay; plaintiff entitled to recover the unpaid balance of $88,948.55; counterclaim dismissed.