Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Negotiation

  • 10 Jun 2010

    CHINA NEW ERA INTERNATIONAL LTD v. BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    CHINA NEW ERA INTERNATIONAL LTD v. BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV8/2010

    Article 7(c) requires that the issuing bank reimburse a nominated bank that has honoured or negotiated a complying presentation and forwarded the documents; "negotiation" under UCP 600 does not require that the nominated bank had every final complying document at the moment it advanced funds or paid the beneficiary provided that the documents eventually forwarded to the issuing bank constitute a complying presentation and the issuing bank is precluded from asserting non-compliance under Article 16(f). Therefore the appellant was entitled to reimbursement and the order below was set aside.

  • 14 Dec 2009

    CHINA NEW ERA INTERNATIONAL LTD v. BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    CHINA NEW ERA INTERNATIONAL LTD v. BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1290/2008

    FCB's presentation was invalid because FCB had paid the beneficiary against a non‑complying presentation (the 1st Cargo Receipt) and therefore did not forward to the issuing bank the same documents it had purchased upon a beneficiary's complying presentation as required by UCP 600 Art.7(c); alternatively, even if presentation timing were disregarded, the 3rd Cargo Receipt was non‑compliant because the chop did not match the specimen provided, so BOC had no obligation to reimburse FCB.

  • 25 Sept 2002

    LANBASE SURVEYORS LTD. v. HOLYROOD LTD.

    Citation
    LANBASE SURVEYORS LTD. v. HOLYROOD LTD.
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA481/1999

    Defendant did not validly terminate the engagement prior to acceptance of the revised premium; the plaintiff's submissions and communications with the Lands Department constituted negotiation and were causative of the Government's revised premium offer; accordingly the plaintiff was entitled under the engagement letter to the 8% negotiation fee and judgment was entered for the plaintiff for HK$952,800 with interest and costs.