Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sale of goods

Legal area

Court

20 Dec 2024

EVERBOND ENGINEERING LTD v. AER BLOCK BUILDING MATERIAL COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2024] HKDC 2130
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3350/2020

The court accepted the Plaintiff's evidence and documentary picture over the Defendant's contested Written Agreement and oral Truck Rental Agreement, found the trucks were held on trust for the Plaintiff (alternatively a common intention constructive or resulting trust) because Plaintiff paid hire‑purchase instalments and running costs, rejected the Defendant's asserted set‑off, dismissed the counterclaim, and entered judgment for the Plaintiff for HK$1,598,450.60 with interest and costs.
17 Oct 2022

BENS AUTO LTD v. SPS AUTOMOTIVE PERFORMANCE (HK) LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3001
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA477/2018

Court accepted Plaintiff's written contracts with Jip and oral back-to-back agreements between Plaintiff and Defendant, rejected Defendant's account and Woo's testimony, found deposits were paid by Plaintiff, found express term that deposits would be refunded if no delivery, held there was no agreed time for payment so no entitlement to forfeit, terminated by 28 September 2017 letter, and therefore Plaintiff entitled to refund of HK$3,135,000 and EUR1,075,000 with interest and costs.
12 Oct 2021

TACHING PETROLEUM CO, LTD v. MEYER ALUMINIUM LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3028
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1929/2017

The Competition Tribunal found no breach of the First Conduct Rule; accordingly the pleaded illegality defence failed as it depended on that finding, set-off did not arise for determination, and judgment was entered for plaintiffs for the contract sums with interest and costs as ordered.
8 Apr 2021

HIGHLINE UNITED ASIA LTD v. TRIPLE 8 LICENSING CO LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 917
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2148/2014

On the facts and contemporaneous documentary record Highline, not Ash HK, was the contracting party to the SS14 Order; the Ash Philippines Agreement did not govern the SS14 Order; T8 failed to adduce any evidence of defects and therefore its defence of defective goods failed; Highline proved the invoiced sums for the SS14 Order and for the Miscellaneous Goods and judgment was entered for those amounts with costs payable by Triple 8 Licensing Co Limited.
5 Mar 2021

SINO GENESIS MEDIA GROUP LTD v. LEE KOK WAI

Citation

[2021] HKDC 263
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3723/2019

The defendant was held liable for reimbursement of instalments paid by the plaintiff and for the proven shortfall on redemption and sale of the car, but the court reduced the claimed sale loss because the sale price lacked market evidence and was likely below market; fixed penalty tickets paid to facilitate sale were recoverable; petrol and parking costs incurred while the car was under plaintiff's control were not recoverable; damages assessed at $295,216 and costs summarily assessed at $80,000.
31 May 2016

NEWOCEAN PETROLEUM CO LTD v. O.W. BUNKER CHINA LTD (in provisional liquidation) AND ANOTHER

Citation

NEWOCEAN PETROLEUM CO LTD v. O.W. BUNKER CHINA LTD (in provisional liquidation) AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA381/2015

Leave to appeal was refused because the UK Supreme Court's decision in PST Energy (Res Cogitans) endorsed the contractual analysis adopted by the judge, rendering the post‑decision authorities based on a sale of goods chain inapposite; the distinct issue of an intermediate supplier lacking authority was not decided by Cogitans and remains undecided, and the application did not present a proper case for leave.
22 Mar 2016

FAR EAST SOURCING LTD v. MAN BOND INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

FAR EAST SOURCING LTD v. MAN BOND INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1463/2012

On the balance of contemporaneous documentary evidence and credible oral testimony the contracting purchaser was Direktshop, not D2 or D1; D2 acted as agent/officer of Direktshop and did not give a valid enforceable personal guarantee, therefore plaintiff's claims against D2 fail.
29 Oct 2015

張家港市博雅貿易有限公司 v. ASD (HK) LTD

Citation

張家港市博雅貿易有限公司 v. ASD (HK) LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2507/2014

The court held that the fraud exclusion did not apply because the plaintiff did not specifically plead fraud or dishonesty; on the merits, summary judgment was refused for the Brazilian Purchase Orders because triable issues of defective goods existed; summary judgment was granted conditionally for the Subsequent Peruvian Purchase Orders subject to the defendant paying HK$286,769.34 into court within 28 days, failing which judgment for US$36,765.30 will be entered; unconditional leave to defend was granted for the Brazilian Purchase Orders; costs to follow the condition (costs in the cause if…
16 Jul 2015

ASK RE LTD v. GRAIN MINERAL RESOURCES PTE LTD

Citation

ASK RE LTD v. GRAIN MINERAL RESOURCES PTE LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA278/2012

The court held that the L/C terms were agreed and binding; the Seller failed to deliver the required original certificates and knowingly submitted documents to the bank that falsely represented dispatch of those originals, thereby breaching an implied term and committing fraud; either breach was repudiatory and the Buyer validly accepted the Seller's repudiation, entitling the Buyer to damages of US$47,422.37.
30 Jun 2015

RILONG GARMENT FACTORY v. AMTEX ASIA LTD

Citation

RILONG GARMENT FACTORY v. AMTEX ASIA LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1676/2013

Contemporaneous documents from the defendant admitting inability to pay and failing to mention defects are inconsistent with the later allegation that the goods were basically worthless; taken with lack of credible particulars and implausible explanations, the defendant has no real or bona fide defence and the counterclaim is unsustainable, therefore leave to appeal and stay of execution are refused and costs are awarded to the plaintiff.