16 May 2008
The plaintiff wrongfully cancelled the contract. By accepting part of the shipment and negotiating replacements the plaintiff waived deadlines; the defendant was willing to perform. Consequently the plaintiff's claim is dismissed and judgment entered for the defendant's counterclaim for storage charges and interest.
3 Dec 1998
The Court found the key witnesses unreliable and there was insufficient credible evidence to establish either the Plaintiff's entitlement to repayment or the Defendant's entitlement to damages; further, although payments were prepayments, they fell within the principle that payments are irrecoverable where the payee had to incur expenses (procure fabrics) before performance, so neither party established a recoverable claim; both claim and counterclaim were dismissed.
10 Feb 1998
Defendant breached the obligation to vacate the registration following termination of the first provisional agreement; that breach directly caused the second purchaser to lawfully refuse completion; plaintiffs proved consequent losses of HK$200,000 (compensation) and HK$63,500 (agency commissions) but failed to prove loss of profit, so recoverable damages are HK$263,500 plus interest and costs.
27 Oct 1995
The interlocutory injunction was discharged because there was a real dispute as to ownership and the plaintiff had unequivocally cancelled the order (which the first defendant accepted), so the plaintiff could not both cancel and claim delivery; damages were an adequate remedy and the balance of convenience did not favor maintaining an interim injunction for ordinary non‑unique goods.
17 Aug 1988
The agreement was not conditional on UL listing; the defendant, having accepted the plaintiff's supplied sample and agreed modifications, was obligated to manufacture accordingly but failed to produce acceptable samples or ship by the contractual dates; the plaintiff did not waive defaults and validly cancelled under Clause 8; plaintiff entitled to recover proven loss of profits of US$396,227.68.
23 Apr 1979
The agreement was validly terminated by the defendant by oral notice; the June 1978 transactions were forged and not made by the defendant; the plaintiff failed to take reasonable steps to notify member establishments of the cancellation and therefore cannot rely on Rule 2 to fix liability on the defendant; accordingly the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.