Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Inspection and acceptance

Legal area

Court

5 Oct 2009

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHONG KUI (GROUP) CO LTD

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHONG KUI (GROUP) CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1036/2009

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial judge's findings that the barrier was not manufactured to contractual specification and could not withstand Beaufort Force 12 because the factual findings were supported by contemporaneous photos, inspection logs and repairs and were not plainly wrong; therefore leave to appeal out of time had no reasonable prospect of success.
22 May 2003

GOLDEN LEAF INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (HONG KONG) LTD v. DURFFEE TOBACCO (HOLDINGS) CO LTD

Citation

GOLDEN LEAF INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (HONG KONG) LTD v. DURFFEE TOBACCO (HOLDINGS) CO LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ18931/2001

On the evidence the Tudor machine was delivered by mistake and the Plaintiff had verbal (but not written) requests for its return; the parties failed to prove a specific agreed production performance standard and no expert evidence was adduced, so the defendant failed to prove non-conformity; accordingly the defendant must pay the outstanding $240,000 with interest and must return the mistakenly delivered Tudor machine, with the Plaintiff to bear the cost of its return.
20 May 2003

LAW YUET KWAI v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE & ANOTHER

Citation

LAW YUET KWAI v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE & ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI430/2001

The court found on the balance of probabilities that inspectors orally agreed to change the U-bar to 12mm stainless steel, that the inspectors knew or ought to have known the U-bars were welded and failed to object, and that the U-bar on buoy M099 was inadequately welded causing its failure; both the defendant and the Third Party were negligent and equally to blame, Condition 11 did not mandate a full indemnity irrespective of Government negligence, and judgment was given that the Third Party indemnify the defendant for one half of the damages and one half of the plaintiff's costs.
25 Apr 2001

MAK PING KUI t/a YET HING KNITTING GARMENT FACTORY v. MILLIONICE LTD. t/a BLESSINGS TRADING CO.

Citation

MAK PING KUI t/a YET HING KNITTING GARMENT FACTORY v. MILLIONICE LTD. t/a BLESSINGS TRADING CO.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA940/1998

The defendant failed to prove that the cheques were given subject to enforceable conditions and failed to discharge the burden of proving defects of such extent as to justify rejection of the whole consignments; the contract was in substance a contract for sale of goods; accordingly the plaintiff was entitled to judgment for the invoiced sums less admitted deductions and the defendant's counterclaim was dismissed.
15 Mar 1999

KINGDOM INTERNATIONAL CO. (a firm) v. ASHITA INDUSTRIES LTD.

Citation

KINGDOM INTERNATIONAL CO. (a firm) v. ASHITA INDUSTRIES LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA5831/1997

Judgment for the Plaintiff because Defendant inspected and accepted the finished goods prior to shipment, no contractual fabric weights or specifications existed to support the alleged non‑conformity, and Defendant failed to provide adequate documentary or evidential proof that goods covered by the disputed invoices were defective or that Plaintiff was liable for losses claimed; accordingly the counterclaim was dismissed.
7 Jan 1993

LUXOR INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL ITEMS INC. v. TSUI HING FAT trading as KAR LAI INDUSTRIAL COMPANY

Citation

LUXOR INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL ITEMS INC. v. TSUI HING FAT trading as KAR LAI INDUSTRIAL COMPANY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3048/1989

Prosperous acted as agent for Luxor when placing the purchase orders with Kar Lai; substantial defects and a substantial short shipment were proved; therefore Kar Lai is liable to Luxor in damages, judgment entered for plaintiff with damages to be assessed.
22 May 1973

HARLOW & JONES LTD v. SIGMA SHIPPING CO LTD

Citation

HARLOW & JONES LTD v. SIGMA SHIPPING CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1901/1970

On the balance of probabilities the court accepted the plaintiff's evidence that the buyer had inspected and accepted the goods (including the pile at the open yard), the seller was ready and willing to deliver and offered cartage, time/place issues did not justify rescission, and the buyer was not entitled to reject; plaintiff awarded damages of $5,072.31 plus contractual interest and costs; defendant's counterclaim dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHONG KUI (GROUP) CO LTD

GOLDEN LEAF INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (HONG KONG) LTD v. DURFFEE TOBACCO (HOLDINGS) CO LTD

LAW YUET KWAI v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE & ANOTHER

MAK PING KUI t/a YET HING KNITTING GARMENT FACTORY v. MILLIONICE LTD. t/a BLESSINGS TRADING CO.

KINGDOM INTERNATIONAL CO. (a firm) v. ASHITA INDUSTRIES LTD.

LUXOR INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL ITEMS INC. v. TSUI HING FAT trading as KAR LAI INDUSTRIAL COMPANY

HARLOW & JONES LTD v. SIGMA SHIPPING CO LTD