27 May 2019
The model number DM228R served as the dispositive identifying characteristic; combined with customs export declarations, invoices, delivery orders, the director's admissions and a matching factory/serial marking, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that P.3 was one of the 200 units imported and sold by the appellant, therefore the conviction was upheld.
1 Jun 2011
Because the goods no longer existed in the form to which a stay could attach (they had been returned and sold by the plaintiff), a stay of execution could not be ordered; the court also lacked power and justification to compel payment into court as a substitute, so the appeal against the lifting of the stay was dismissed and costs awarded to the plaintiff.
29 Jan 2007
Although the court found the defendant had effectively admitted the product's circuit design could be wrong or improper (short-circuit risk when the switch was held in an intermediate 'misuse' position) and that the disputed product sold to the plaintiff was the same described by the buyer's customer, the plaintiff failed to prove recoverable loss. The claimed damages were unparticularised, largely related to downstream parties and unsupported by documentary or expert evidence; causation and quantification were not established. Therefore the claim fails and is dismissed despite findings on de…
26 Jun 2006
The court found the defendant's defence shadowy and the plaintiff's case strong; however, because evidence at the summary stage was not complete, the court refused final summary judgment and instead granted conditional leave to the defendant to defend provided the defendant pays the claimed sum of HKD 701,241.09 into court within 14 days; costs in the cause with certificate for counsel.
6 Jan 2005
Plaintiff failed to prove that the 300 CPUs supplied by the Defendant were counterfeit or that the 4 CPUs proven counterfeit formed part of those 300 units; Intel's letter and lot code identification were unreliable and unsupported by viva voce evidence; therefore the plaintiff did not discharge the burden of proof and the claims must be dismissed.
28 Nov 2001
The contract was void for mistake because the vehicle delivered did not correspond to the described chassis number; accordingly plaintiff may recover the purchase price and storage only upon returning the vehicle, but repair costs and loss of profit are not recoverable because the plaintiff acted as a volunteer with knowledge of the tampering.
8 Jul 1998
Appeals allowed because the prosecution failed to identify the garments made by Ocean Fashion as the goods in the export consignment beyond reasonable doubt; material uncertainties about fabric composition and the Magistrate's failure to consider seized business records left a reasonable doubt, rendering the convictions unsafe.
22 Nov 1990
On the balance of probabilities the 156 bales in the Chaiwan godown formed part of the goods delivered by the defendants and those bales did not conform to the contract description; accordingly the defendants are liable to the plaintiffs for damages for breach of warranty and the appeal is allowed with judgment entered for the plaintiffs.
23 Apr 1986
The Court upheld the trial judge: identity of the defective cloth was sufficiently established; the Notices did not create warranties absolving Dayon; trade custom required only sample/random inspection not full inspection; the defects were not obvious so Hang Tat did not breach mitigation duties; the settlement with Marubeni was reasonable and attributable loss to Dayon was US$26,324.
19 Nov 1985
Dayon breached implied terms to dye the fabric properly; the defects were not reasonably discoverable by Hang Tat given volume and packing so no limiting custom applied; downstream losses resulting from the breach were not too remote and a reasonable settlement by Marubeni/Asia Knit (apportioned) is recoverable from Dayon, yielding judgment for Hang Tat for an apportioned sum with interest.