Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Acceptance and rejection

Legal area

Court

13 Jan 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 106
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2280/2015

On the evidence, including contemporaneous emails, MR's report and the Negotiation Document and Replacement Agreement, the court found the majority of goods delivered under the 1st and 2nd purchase orders were defective; the Replacement Agreement and admissions were binding on the Defendant; there was no persuasive proof of duress or of defects caused by Plaintiffs' handling; delayed complaints were reasonable because goods were bought for resale; Defendant breached implied conditions under the Sale of Goods Ordinance and is liable in damages.
7 Nov 2013

SIMNEX INDUSTRIAL LTD v. THE CONTINUITY COMPANY LTD

Citation

SIMNEX INDUSTRIAL LTD v. THE CONTINUITY COMPANY LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2038/2012

The court found a single contract (or contracts so closely connected) and that the Plaintiff had effectively conceded defects in the goods; the Defendant's counterclaim arises from the same contract and may be set off against the Plaintiff's claim; accordingly the Plaintiff's summons is dismissed because it would be inequitable to permit recovery without accounting for the counterclaim.
22 Jul 2013

GREAT TIME INDUSTRIAL (HONG KONG) LTD v. TANHOUSE LTD

Citation

GREAT TIME INDUSTRIAL (HONG KONG) LTD v. TANHOUSE LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2862/2010

The court found on the evidence that 7,466 garments were delivered, the defendant failed to prove that the goods were defective to the extent alleged, no agreement was established that delivery was subject to Bonita's acceptance, the defendant had opportunities to inspect and therefore accepted the goods and lost the right to reject; accordingly the plaintiff is entitled to the contract price and the defendant's counterclaim is dismissed.
23 Jan 2007

IMADA LUENWAH WORLD LTD v. YIP MING CHEONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

IMADA LUENWAH WORLD LTD v. YIP MING CHEONG AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5540/2003

On the evidence the court preferred the seller's account: the machine was capable of the specified rate at trials, the recurring operational problems were caused by inconsistent and poor quality of materials supplied by the buyer (not defects in the machine), the seller supplied the manual and adequate training, there was no implied contractual obligation to supply computer documents, and the buyer's conduct (use, part payments, retention and requests for repairs) amounted to acceptance and loss of the right to reject; accordingly seller entitled to unpaid balance and repair invoice and buyer…
23 Jan 2007

YIP MING CHEONG AND ANOTHER v. IMADA LUENWAH WORLD LTD

Citation

YIP MING CHEONG AND ANOTHER v. IMADA LUENWAH WORLD LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6521/2003

On the balance of probabilities the observed operational problems were caused by inconsistent and changed packaging materials supplied by Imada and not by defects in the machine; Mei-King supplied the manual and adequate training and performed tuning/repairs; Imada used and retained the machine and by conduct and lapse of reasonable time had accepted it and lost the right to reject; judgment awarded to Mei-King for outstanding balance and repair invoice with interest and costs.
3 Jun 2004

KOLINKER INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT LTD v. LONGHILL INDUSTRIES LTD & ANOTHER

Citation

KOLINKER INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT LTD v. LONGHILL INDUSTRIES LTD & ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5052/2002

The court found the tacker did not conform to the contractual description and breached implied conditions of description, merchantable quality and fitness for purpose; the plaintiff validly rejected the tacker and is entitled to repayment of the price plus incidental charges and interest; the SSEC return-to-manufacturer warranty term was not incorporated so did not prevent rejection; defendant is entitled to indemnity from SSEC for the judgment sum, interest and costs.
23 Jan 1985

QUAN WA CHEONG v. MAK KEUNG MAU t/a KIEW TAI HONG

Citation

QUAN WA CHEONG v. MAK KEUNG MAU t/a KIEW TAI HONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3829/1984

The judge preferred the defendant's account on credibility grounds, found the plaintiff failed to prove entitlement to the contract price, and dismissed the plaintiff's claim. The defendant's timely rejection was accepted and the defendant succeeded on the counterclaim for transportation costs (limited to the amount proved). Storage charges were not recoverable as a consequence of the plaintiff's breach in the absence of pleaded or proved agreement to pay storage.
14 Jun 1984

GEEKAY EXPORT & IMPORT CO LTD v. GRANETS ELECTRONICS LTD

Citation

GEEKAY EXPORT & IMPORT CO LTD v. GRANETS ELECTRONICS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA8997/1982

Court found the contracts were sales by sample and description, a substantial number of watches were defective due to design causing excessive battery drain rendering them unmerchantable, the plaintiff accepted the goods by selling them on and thereby lost the right to reject, and damages were assessed under sections 55(2) and 55(3) of the Sale of Goods Ordinance as the loss of profit measured from the earliest date the plaintiff could reasonably recover possession (13 February 1982) with deduction for value of non‑defective watches and allowance for mitigation.
5 Dec 1983

INFINITRON (HONG KONG) LTD v. HIMALAYA (POWER) ELECTRONICS CO LTD

Citation

INFINITRON (HONG KONG) LTD v. HIMALAYA (POWER) ELECTRONICS CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2219/1983

On the balance of probabilities the defendants permitted storage of 5,000 of each switch type without accepting them; an agreement on or about 7 April cancelled the balance of the contracts and led to payment for 5,000 014 switches; plaintiffs' broader claim fails and judgment is for the defendants.