Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Distributorship agreement

Legal area

Court

10 Feb 2011

NOVUS INTERNATIONAL PTE. LTD v. GOOD EARTH AGRICULTURAL CO LTD

Citation

NOVUS INTERNATIONAL PTE. LTD v. GOOD EARTH AGRICULTURAL CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL16/2008

The court construed the distributorship agreement in favour of Novus (Good Earth was required to account 92% of the actual resale price and was not entitled to retain an undisclosed onsale margin), declined to impose a fiduciary duty, but held Novus's claim was statute-barred because Novus could with reasonable diligence have discovered Good Earth’s onsale margin practice in 1997-1998; accordingly the contractual claim failed on limitation and was dismissed.
3 Sept 2007

WINBOND ELECTRONICS (HK) LTD v. ACHIEVA COMPONENTS CHINA LTD

Citation

WINBOND ELECTRONICS (HK) LTD v. ACHIEVA COMPONENTS CHINA LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5616/2006

Appeal allowed and Master's stay set aside because the distributorship agreement expired on 31 December 2004 in the absence of the required written renewal; the renewal clause was an unenforceable agreement to agree and there was no prima facie evidence that the arbitration clause was incorporated into subsequent purchase orders by course of dealings, so the respondent failed to meet the low but real threshold to obtain a stay pending arbitration.
6 Dec 2006

CHONG KAR NING v. INTERNATIONAL PAINT LLC

Citation

CHONG KAR NING v. INTERNATIONAL PAINT LLC
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV116/2006

The Court concluded there was no genuine cross-claim because appellants delayed asserting the commission claim, contemporaneous correspondence and admissions (notably the 2 February 2004 letter) evidenced acceptance of the debt, and the documents relied upon did not establish an enforceable commission entitlement independent of the 1994 Agreement; accordingly the statutory demands were valid and the appeal was dismissed.
31 Oct 1997

BRIGHT-LINE ENTERPRISE COMPANY LIMITED v. MELODY PREMIER TECHNOLOGY LIMITED

Citation

BRIGHT-LINE ENTERPRISE COMPANY LIMITED v. MELODY PREMIER TECHNOLOGY LIMITED
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV164/1997

The defendant's defence that payment was conditional on the supply of spare parts was not credible on the contemporaneous documents and the parties' conduct, so summary judgment for US$32,785 was properly entered for the plaintiff; however, because the defendant's counterclaim arises from the same course of dealing and is not a sham, execution of the judgment should be stayed pending determination of the counterclaim to avoid potential unfairness.

Hong Kong Case Law

NOVUS INTERNATIONAL PTE. LTD v. GOOD EARTH AGRICULTURAL CO LTD

WINBOND ELECTRONICS (HK) LTD v. ACHIEVA COMPONENTS CHINA LTD

CHONG KAR NING v. INTERNATIONAL PAINT LLC

BRIGHT-LINE ENTERPRISE COMPANY LIMITED v. MELODY PREMIER TECHNOLOGY LIMITED