Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Fitness for purpose

Legal area

Court

2 Feb 2026

RICKEED INDUSTRIES LTD AND ANOTHER v. HONG KONG TOHKOH COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2026] HKCA 105
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV72/2022

The appeal was allowed because the judge's factual finding that a majority of the goods under PO1 and PO2 were defective lacked evidential basis; in consequence breach of the implied conditions and causation of the claimed loss were not established and the damages award based on resale differentials was unsafe; the judgment below was set aside and the plaintiffs' claim dismissed.
16 Apr 2025

DIALECTIC PR LLC v. THINKING GROUP LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1555
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL8/2020

On the balance of probabilities the court found (1) the Jintailang masks (Shipment 3) failed to meet the Chinese standard/US Modified NIOSH Test as shown by the NIOSH Report and expert analysis; (2) the Xianda masks sent to Germany (Shipment 5) failed the EU FFP2 paraffin oil penetration test as shown by DEKRA and thus did not meet the contractual standard; (3) the Xianda masks sent to the USA (Shipment 4) were mislabelled as compliant with the EU standard; the Plaintiff validly rejected Shipments 3,4 and 5 and is entitled to damages under s.53(2) SOGO for lost profits (net of costs) and reco…
31 Dec 2024

TOBRIX B.V. (a company incorporated in the Netherlands) v. HONGKONG TRIPOD LTD

Citation

[2024] HKDC 2124
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ291/2021

The court found on the balance of probabilities that the operative agreement was a buyer-seller sale of goods contract (formed by WeChat exchanges and conduct, effectively on 21 March 2020) with the defendant as seller and plaintiff as buyer; the defendant was not the plaintiff's agent and the alleged Hank Sourcing Agreement was not established as creating agency; the 1st Order masks breached implied conditions of merchantable quality and fitness for purpose under the Sale of Goods Ordinance; plaintiff validly terminated by the 2 May 2020 letter and is entitled to recovery of retained MOA EUR…
1 Aug 2024

ECHELLES RIFFAUD S.A. v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1994
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1841/2011

Court found five Critical Defects (water pressure fluctuation and shared hydraulic drive; overheating and insufficient insulation; buckling) established and latent and that overturning risk was not established; implied terms were not necessary beyond express GCC Clause 3(a); Contract A had been accepted by payment and could not validly be terminated (remedy limited to damages for breach of warranty); Contract B effectively became deemed accepted and termination was lost; Contract C was validly terminated by Government for lack of adequate FAT parameters and non-delivery; damages awarded to Go…
10 Sept 2021

POTEX TOYS MANUFACTURER LTD v. MEI PO PLASTIC MANUFACTURING CO LTD

Citation

[2021] HKDC 1045
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3392/2017

Court found no evidence of any pre‑contractual false representation by Potex; the alleged implied terms were not incorporated because the evidence and pleading were deficient and the 4‑hole practice conflicted with the contract's express packaging and safety standards; there was no proof the delivered goods were unfit for purpose; Mei Po retained and treated the goods inconsistently with rejection and has not proved loss; therefore Mei Po is liable to pay the contract price of HK$445,625 with interest and costs and its counterclaim is dismissed.
5 Mar 2021

CHEUNG PO YUK ALAN t/a HONG KONG PO LUNG PLASTIC FACTORY v. PROCESS PLASTIC MATERIAL CO LTD

Citation

[2021] HKDC 250
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3105/2016

On the evidence (no expert analysis, incomplete visual proof), the court found the alleged white spots existed but that plaintiff failed to prove the F2 materials breached implied conditions of merchantable quality, correspondence with sample or fitness for purpose; the printed 7‑day rejection and interest terms were not treated as part of the parties' agreement by course of dealings; plaintiff had used up materials and could not validly reject them; March 2016 confirmation did not bind defendant to absolve payment without return of goods; accordingly plaintiff's claim dismissed and defendant…
14 Jun 2019

LIP HING METAL MANUFACTURING (HONG KONG) LTD v. GOLDEN METRO MACHINE TOOL CO LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1547
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1811/2016

The machines produced parts with variances outside the declared tolerance (+0.01mm) and with unstable precision; therefore they breached the implied conditions of merchantable quality and fitness for purpose under SOGO ss.16 and 2(5); the Plaintiff validly rejected the machines and is entitled to rescission, a full refund of the price and damages and interest and costs.
23 Nov 2018

GREENS NURSERY & TREE PLANTING DESIGN LTD v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2558
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1286/2015

On contractual interpretation of the Tender Notice and Tenancy Agreement in their factual matrix, no warranty or representation was made that the premises would be fit for use as a fee-paying public carpark; the caveat lessee principle and express 'as is' and special conditions (trees preservation, tenant's obligation to fence and obtain approvals) rebut any implied warranty; plaintiff had initial intention but did not show the landlord knew at award; no breach of warranty, no derogation from grant and no breach of covenant for quiet enjoyment; claim dismissed.
17 Oct 2016

DIYIXIAN.COM LTD v. G’FIVE INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

DIYIXIAN.COM LTD v. G’FIVE INTERNATIONAL LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA229/2013

Not determinable from the provided excerpt of the judgment.
22 Jun 2015

GENEXY CO LTD v. HEREKE TEXTILES CO LTD

Citation

GENEXY CO LTD v. HEREKE TEXTILES CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA58/2014

Appeal dismissed: the tribunal's factual findings were unassailable that no specific tensile strength standard or particular garment purpose was communicated by Genexy, Genexy had approved and relied on a representative sample before bulk order, alleged tearing was attributable to sewing method, not fabric quality; therefore claims under SOGO ss16(2) and (3) failed and Hereke was entitled to the balance of price; appellate court will not disturb tribunal's findings.