Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Rejection of goods

Legal area

Court

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…
27 Sept 2019

FEBEST EUROPE DISTRIBUTION OU v. ZHONG XING DA TECHNOLOGY CO, LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2373
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1759/2018

The court found the goods were used and/or defective and not of merchantable quality and that the plaintiff validly rejected the goods under SOGO s38; after rejection there was a failure of basis entitling the plaintiff to recover the purchase price as wasted expenditure, therefore the defendant must pay US$299,458 plus interest from the date of rejection (2 May 2018) and must pay HK$200,000 for storage; costs awarded to plaintiff.
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 Jan 2014

PRESTIK LTD t/a FREDERICK L.C. LUI & COMPANY v. HANG FAI CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS (GROUP) LTD t/a QUICK STEP SHOP

Citation

PRESTIK LTD t/a FREDERICK L.C. LUI & COMPANY v. HANG FAI CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS (GROUP) LTD t/a QUICK STEP SHOP
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2073/2012

The court found the contract was a sale by sample but the express term that "colours and shadings may vary from the sample" qualified (but did not entirely exclude) the statutory implied term so as to permit variation in the colours and shadings of the finished product; therefore the plaintiff was not entitled to reject the goods and the defendant was entitled to judgment on its counterclaim for the balance of the contract price of $9,235.
28 Jun 2010

TOP SUNNY (HONG KONG) LTD v. WESTPEX FASHION LTD

Citation

TOP SUNNY (HONG KONG) LTD v. WESTPEX FASHION LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2874/2009

The court found that property had passed and that there was sufficient evidence to entitle the Plaintiff to judgment for unpaid partial deliveries which the Defendant had accepted and not paid (total HK$24,420.55); but because the evidence on acceptance after the third inspection was ambiguous and there was credible evidence of defects (including admission of 209 scratched buttons/rivets and an Intertek salt spray result), the Defendant demonstrated an arguable defence to the remainder of the claim and was granted leave to defend; accordingly summary judgment was entered in part only and refu…
8 Jul 2009

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHONG KUI (GROUP) CO LTD

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHONG KUI (GROUP) CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1036/2009

Although the delay was short and the explanation (delay in obtaining leave to represent the defendant) was reasonable, the defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success on appeal against the judge's factual and contractual findings and on damages; therefore extension of time to appeal was refused.
21 Aug 2007

TECH-TRANS SYSTEM LTD v. ELM COMPUTER TECHNOLOGIES LTD

Citation

TECH-TRANS SYSTEM LTD v. ELM COMPUTER TECHNOLOGIES LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1200/2005

The Court found no evidence Ocean rejected the goods; the alleged oral delivery-only-on-request term was either inadmissible as contradicting the written contract or was beyond the agent's authority; the maintenance period issue was a breach of warranty under s.55(1) and did not permit rejection; the signed quotation by Tech-Trans Telecom made it party to the contract; accordingly TT System's claim failed and ELM succeeded on its counterclaim against Tech-Trans Telecom for US$98,641.86 plus interest.
9 Mar 2007

CROYDEX LTD v. TUNG SHING PLASTIC FACTORY LTD

Citation

CROYDEX LTD v. TUNG SHING PLASTIC FACTORY LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1348/2005

Where seller accepted rejection the correct measure is that for non-delivery under SGO s53; plaintiff proved rejection, credible evidence and foreseeability of loss to sub-buyers (Argos), and may recover (a) contract price for rejected goods, (b) reasonable wasted delivery costs pro rata, (c) reasonable resorting labour costs, (d) price difference for specified substitute items, and (e) airfreight for substitutes less the sea freight that would have been payable.
25 Nov 2005

BENCHMARKING (CHINA) LTD v. POLY PACIFIC ENTERPRISES LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

BENCHMARKING (CHINA) LTD v. POLY PACIFIC ENTERPRISES LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1337/2002

On the evidence the court found the goods delivered did not correspond with the contractual descriptions (excessive paper and other contaminants beyond tolerated trade allowance), the Plaintiff validly rejected the containers, and the Plaintiff is entitled to recover payments and reasonably incurred mitigation and handling expenses resulting from the Defendant's breach; judgment entered for Plaintiff for the assessed sums.
25 Feb 2005

O.K. FASHION KNITTERS LTD v. LANTEX HOLDING LTD

Citation

O.K. FASHION KNITTERS LTD v. LANTEX HOLDING LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4398/2002

On balance of probabilities the court found Plaintiff delivered the goods to the assigned warehouse on 29 March 2002, rejected Defendant's evidence of later delivery and of defects, held Defendant failed to prove entitlement to the asserted late‑shipment deductions or counterclaim, deemed Defendant to have accepted the goods in law where appropriate, allowed Plaintiff's claim for outstanding payments and expenses, dismissed Defendant's counterclaim, and awarded judgment to Plaintiff totalling HK$325,854.19 plus interest and costs.