Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Description of goods

Legal area

Court

8 Nov 2018

ARNOLD ROBERT LTD v. GLORIOUS MOTORS LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2467
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA950/2014

The description 'HGTE package' was ambiguous in scope and should be read as describing some HGTE features rather than necessarily the complete set; a reasonable dealer would inquire further into what specific HGTE items were present. Where the dealer legitimately relied on inspection results showing defects beyond reasonable wear and tear and invoked the contractual inspection/cancellation mechanism, the dealer was entitled to refuse the trade-in and cancel performance under the Agreement.
27 Apr 2004

WONG HIU LING v. MP HONG KONG LTD

Citation

WONG HIU LING v. MP HONG KONG LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA4/2003

On the evidence, including expert experiments and report, the Tribunal permissibly found the bed sheets did not correspond with their description as a health product and were not of merchantable quality or fit for the asserted purpose; there was no error of law and the factual findings stand, so appeals are dismissed.
27 Apr 2004

CHAN SIU KING v. MP HONG KONG LTD

Citation

CHAN SIU KING v. MP HONG KONG LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA6/2003

The Tribunal's factual finding that the bed sheets did not correspond with the description as a health product and were not of merchantable quality was open on the evidence (notably the Consumer Council report and expert testimony demonstrating no net FIR transfer to the user); no error of law was shown on appeal, so the appeals were dismissed.
8 Apr 1999

SAMSUNG HONG KONG LTD. v. KEEN TIME TRADING LTD.

Citation

SAMSUNG HONG KONG LTD. v. KEEN TIME TRADING LTD.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV240/1998

The Court held that the seller delivered non‑conforming goods (1.4D v 1.5D), the plaintiff failed to produce cogent expert evidence of commercial tolerance or trade custom to establish conformity, the defendant would have been legally entitled and is presumed to have rejected the goods to minimize loss, and therefore the plaintiff proved no compensable loss beyond nominal damages; appeal dismissed.
29 Jan 1983

ISLAND DYEING & PRINTING CO LTD v. SUN SUN ENTERPRISES (A FIRM)

Citation

ISLAND DYEING & PRINTING CO LTD v. SUN SUN ENTERPRISES (A FIRM)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA654/1981

On the facts the court found the goods did not correspond with the description and were not of merchantable quality (the substance had become soda ash rather than caustic soda), the defendant breached express and implied terms, oral assertions by defendant could not vary the complete written sales contract, and judgment was entered for plaintiff for $121,000 with interest and costs; the defendant's counterclaim was dismissed.
28 Aug 1948

SHUN YUEN CO v. INTERNATIONAL CHEMICALS AND ANOTHER

Citation

SHUN YUEN CO v. INTERNATIONAL CHEMICALS AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA31/1948

Plaintiffs repudiated the contract by conduct and that repudiation was accepted; plaintiffs cannot justify that repudiation by defects discovered afterwards; accordingly the deposit was forfeited to the defendants and the defendants cannot claim special damages based on resale because the goods offered did not conform to the contractual description (and plaintiffs would have been entitled to reject them).

Hong Kong Case Law

ARNOLD ROBERT LTD v. GLORIOUS MOTORS LTD

WONG HIU LING v. MP HONG KONG LTD

CHAN SIU KING v. MP HONG KONG LTD

SAMSUNG HONG KONG LTD. v. KEEN TIME TRADING LTD.

ISLAND DYEING & PRINTING CO LTD v. SUN SUN ENTERPRISES (A FIRM)

SHUN YUEN CO v. INTERNATIONAL CHEMICALS AND ANOTHER