Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Godown warrant

  • 30 May 1986

    TEIN FONG PRIVATE LTD v. GOODYEARS MARKETING AND OTHERS

    Citation
    TEIN FONG PRIVATE LTD v. GOODYEARS MARKETING AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCL138/1984

    The court found that the 2nd defendant was operating as a godown keeper, issued a godown warrant in the plaintiff's name and thereby attorned to the plaintiff; by shipping the goods without requiring production of the warrant the 2nd defendant breached its duties and was negligent, making it liable to the plaintiff for the market value of the goods ($538,824.56) plus interest, resulting in judgment for the plaintiff for $556,362 as at date of writ.

  • 15 Oct 1984

    THE KWANGTUNG PROVINCIAL BANK v. HONG KONG UNION TRANSPORTATION & GODOWN CO LTD

    Citation
    THE KWANGTUNG PROVINCIAL BANK v. HONG KONG UNION TRANSPORTATION & GODOWN CO LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA8625/1982

    Because the plaintiff proved possession of the godown warrants, made demands for delivery and proved the value of the undelivered goods by invoices, and because the defendant, having pleaded but not proved alleged compromising agreement or estoppel (and being absent), failed to discharge the burden of proof, the court entered judgment for the plaintiff with interest from 10 June 1982 to judgment at 2% over prime and post-judgment interest at the rate prescribed by the Chief Justice until satisfaction.

  • 3 Aug 1984

    EISEN TRADERS (a firm) v. PAK SIK ENTERPRISES LTD AND OTHERS

    Citation
    EISEN TRADERS (a firm) v. PAK SIK ENTERPRISES LTD AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA7112/1983

    Plaintiff failed to prove superior title or acceptance of the returned goods; the defendant, having notice of the Master's order, properly released goods to claimants who presented valid delivery orders and executed new godown warrants before the plaintiff's presentation, and the plaintiff was bound by the warehousing contract terms; therefore defendant not liable and judgment for defendant with costs.