Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Acceptance of goods

Legal area

Court

10 Sept 2021

POTEX TOYS MANUFACTURER LTD v. MEI PO PLASTIC MANUFACTURING CO LTD

Citation

[2021] HKDC 1045
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3392/2017

Court found no evidence of any pre‑contractual false representation by Potex; the alleged implied terms were not incorporated because the evidence and pleading were deficient and the 4‑hole practice conflicted with the contract's express packaging and safety standards; there was no proof the delivered goods were unfit for purpose; Mei Po retained and treated the goods inconsistently with rejection and has not proved loss; therefore Mei Po is liable to pay the contract price of HK$445,625 with interest and costs and its counterclaim is dismissed.
24 Jan 2019

JYOTSNA TEXTILE PROCESSORS PRIVATE LTD v. SONAKARAN INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 213
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2173/2014

The court accepted the Plaintiff's uncontradicted evidence of delivery, inspection and acceptance and found no adequate pleaded particulars or probative evidence that the goods were damaged or unmerchantable; the court also accepted that payments received corresponded to invoices 012–014 and that, after applying the credit balance, US$134,496.49 remained due; judgment was therefore entered for the Plaintiff with an order nisi for interest at P+1% from the writ date and costs to the Plaintiff on a nisi basis.
7 Mar 2018

RE RAD SOURCE TECHNOLOGIES ASIA LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 610
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW253/2017

The respondent had accepted the delivered irradiator under s37 of the Sale of Goods Ordinance because it had ample opportunity to examine and did not reject it; there was no credible contemporaneous evidence of any binding oral agreement to defer payment and surrounding facts (including evidence that the enduser paid 90%) undermined that claim; consequently the company failed to show a bona fide defence on substantial grounds and the petition succeeded, warranting a winding up order and costs.
21 Jul 2014

MASTER WEAVING LTD v. HANBO ENTERPRISES LTD

Citation

MASTER WEAVING LTD v. HANBO ENTERPRISES LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA676/2012

On the evidence the fabrics under both FPOs were not proved to be defective attributable to the plaintiff; the defendant nevertheless accepted the fabrics by conduct (manufacturing garments, issuing cargo receipt leading to LC payment, and applying for another LC); the contemporaneous email from the defendant's merchandiser and the parties' conduct established a binding collateral compromise to hold and account for payments and to apply proceeds after resale, which barred recovery of the sums claimed for the 2nd FPO and the 8 invoices; plaintiff succeeded only on the 2009 invoice for US$477 w…
17 Mar 2014

BAR CODE SYSTEMS CO LTD v. TAG IT PACIFIC LTD

Citation

BAR CODE SYSTEMS CO LTD v. TAG IT PACIFIC LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3041/2012

Tag-it failed to prove the leg stickers were not of merchantable quality because the independent BV Lab reports were insufficiently particularised and there were critical gaps in the chain and condition of samples; there was no evidence the Settlement Sum was paid or that Tag-it had locus to claim it; Tag-it also failed to establish reasonable mitigation; accordingly the counterclaim is dismissed and judgment is entered for the plaintiff for the admitted sum.
28 Jun 2013

FACE MAGAZINE MARKERTING LTD v. INNOVATIVE GIFT & PREMIUM (HK) LTD

Citation

FACE MAGAZINE MARKERTING LTD v. INNOVATIVE GIFT & PREMIUM (HK) LTD<br>
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1754/2012

The court accepted the plaintiff's expert evidence that the lunch boxes stained food under normal microwaving; found the plaintiff had made known the particular purpose of microwave use so s.16(3) implied fitness-for-purpose applied; the goods were not fit and defendant breached that implied condition; defendant's test reports were inadmissible hearsay; no oral limitation of liability was proved; plaintiff entitled to consequential damages, set off against the contract balance, and judgment for net sum awarded.
26 Apr 2013

周佩詩以博通發展公司的名義經營 v. INTERFID LTD

Citation

周佩詩以博通發展公司的名義經營 v. INTERFID LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ105/2012

The November and March Quotation & Confirmation documents were valid, binding contracts because they contained all essential terms and contemporaneous emails and conduct evidenced acceptance; alleged oral agreements to vary prices were not proven and conflicted with the parol evidence rule and the parties' conduct; the March Invoice reflected an oral agreement to share the cost of undelivered 50,000 green hang tags and is payable; accordingly judgment entered for plaintiff for HK$398,500 and the defendant's counterclaim dismissed.
14 Mar 2013

WELLTUS LTD v. FORNTON KNITTING CO LTD

Citation

WELLTUS LTD v. FORNTON KNITTING CO LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV268/2011

The appeal was allowed in part because the trial judge failed to address a critical pleaded issue of acceptance of delivered goods and did not give adequate reasons on key credibility and expert-evidence disputes; the counterclaim contained errors in quantification and lacked sufficient reasoned analysis; accordingly the trial judgment was set aside, partial judgment for Plaintiff for $33,981.26 was entered by concession, and the balance of claims and the Defendant's counterclaim were remitted for retrial before another judge.
23 May 2012

SO JI TING t/a KARTIER SKINCARE CENTRE v. MEDIPRO LTD

Citation

SO JI TING t/a KARTIER SKINCARE CENTRE v. MEDIPRO LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3760/2010

Plaintiff established breach of implied condition of merchantable quality but had effectively accepted the Machine (by entering hire-purchase and retaining it), so her right to reject was lost; breach treated as breach of warranty and damages measured as difference between contract price and value the Machine would have had if as warranted (140,000 - 10,000 = 130,000). Ancillary claims for delivery, return charges and rental losses were rejected. Interest and summary costs awarded to plaintiff as ordered.
8 Jun 2011

V SHAPES MOULDERS LTD v. PACIFIC DUNLOP GARMENTS LTD

Citation

V SHAPES MOULDERS LTD v. PACIFIC DUNLOP GARMENTS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA493/2008

On the evidence the Court found the Plaintiff defective in moulding operations (excessive temperature/dwell time and failure to follow specification) causing yellowing of moulded shell fabrics and apex/fitting defects so the goods failed to correspond with samples and breached SOGO implied terms; the Defendant accepted bulk goods by processing and delivery so lost right of rejection but could recover damages for losses incurred before acceptance; foam cup yellowing was a latent defect but no established trade practice of 20 weeks or sufficient evidence to fix Plaintiff liability for foam; no…