Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Non-delivery

Legal area

Court

30 Mar 2015

TOPWIN & COMPANIES LTD v. PRISM TECHNOLOGY LTD

Citation

TOPWIN & COMPANIES LTD v. PRISM TECHNOLOGY LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1930/2011

The court held that Topwin's signing and return of the PS3 purchase orders amounted to acceptance of fixed shipment dates which, given the commercial context and target Christmas season, were of the essence; Topwin breached by late delivery and by failing to deliver the remaining PS3 units and Prism validly treated remaining orders as repudiated; Prism was entitled to damages for loss of profit (USD144,321.64) and additional airfreight (USD175,508.22) and Topwin's counterclaims were dismissed; no concluded contract existed for the Xbox headsets (Topwin did not accept the Xbox POs/SCs) and Pri…
30 Mar 2015

PRISM TECHNOLOGY LTD v. TOPWIN & COMPANIES LTD

Citation

PRISM TECHNOLOGY LTD v. TOPWIN & COMPANIES LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1190/2011

Topwin's signing and return of PS3 purchase orders established acceptance of fixed shipment dates which, given the commercial context and Sony's deadline, were of the essence; Topwin's failure to deliver by those dates and its failure to obtain Sony approval for improved samples entitled Prism to treat remaining PS3 contracts as repudiated and recover foreseeable losses (airfreight and loss of profit); no concluded contract existed for Xbox headsets because Xbox POs/SCs were not accepted/signed; PS3 toolings were payable and settled, Xbox tooling deposit recoverable due to failure of consider…
17 Jul 2009

LAI LOONG PIU v. WANG SIEW MEI, ALICE

Citation

LAI LOONG PIU v. WANG SIEW MEI, ALICE
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ615/2008

The court accepted the plaintiff's account, found there was no delivery in accordance with the agreed terms and no valid authorisation for Lo to take delivery, and therefore held the defendant liable to repay HK$145,000 with interest and to pay costs.
9 Feb 2007

LEVA INTERNATIONAL TRADING CO v. HO KWAI PO AND ANOTHER t/a CONCORD ENTERPRISES

Citation

LEVA INTERNATIONAL TRADING CO v. HO KWAI PO AND ANOTHER t/a CONCORD ENTERPRISES
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV157/2006

The appeal was dismissed because the court found Concord Enterprises to be the contracting party: it issued and signed sales confirmations in its own name without qualification, retained a profit margin consistent with a sub-sale, and failed to disclose the supplier's confirmation (COR 729/03) which would have shown a lower supplier price; these facts displaced any inference that Concord was merely an agent for Concret Orgachem, so Concord was liable for non-delivery.
8 Dec 2003

GLORY ELECTRICAL MANUFACTURING (HK) CO LTD v. DAYS IMPEX LTD

Citation

GLORY ELECTRICAL MANUFACTURING (HK) CO LTD v. DAYS IMPEX LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ13613/2000

The court preferred the plaintiff's credible documentary-supported evidence and found on the balance of probabilities that the plaintiff delivered the goods under the relevant invoice and was entitled to judgment for HK$315,700; the claimed prior practice supported interest liability; the defendant failed to prove defects or lawful entitlement to damages for cancelled/non-delivered contracts and its counterclaims were dismissed.
28 Jun 2002

ARMA FAR EAST LTD. v. UNI FIT GARMENT FACTORY LTD.

Citation

ARMA FAR EAST LTD. v. UNI FIT GARMENT FACTORY LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA13201/1998

The judge found the plaintiff's witnesses and contemporaneous documents credible and authoritative, rejected the defendant's witnesses and expert as unreliable, concluded the plaintiff was the contracting seller, held the defendant had accepted the delivered goods under s.37, and dismissed the counterclaim (abandoned after failure to cross-examine), thus entering final judgment for the plaintiff for US$75,663.50 with agreed interest.
19 Nov 1999

JACKIN OPTICAL MARKETING CO. LTD. v. UNIVERSE LASER & VIDEO CO. LTD.

Citation

JACKIN OPTICAL MARKETING CO. LTD. v. UNIVERSE LASER & VIDEO CO. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA16746/1998

None of the five counterclaims were supported by sufficient credible evidence, particularised quantification, or the requisite close transactional connection to the Plaintiff's claim to justify equitable set-off or to defeat a summary judgment; accordingly summary judgment for the Plaintiff was entered for the claimed sum with interest and costs.
16 Dec 1994

MARIANNE TRADING LTD. v. CHEUNG YAN TIN AND OTHERS

Citation

MARIANNE TRADING LTD. v. CHEUNG YAN TIN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4289/1990

The court found the plaintiff proved the quality defect claim as to the 918 cartons and awarded US$29,145, but dismissed the plaintiff's non-delivery claim because under the FOB terms the plaintiff failed to give shipping instructions during the shipment period and therefore could not complain of non-delivery; the defendant's counterclaim failed for lack of mitigation.
9 Dec 1988

PANACHAND & COMPANY PTE. LTD. v. POON LEE MENG t/a HIAP HENG CO. (a firm)

Citation

PANACHAND & COMPANY PTE. LTD. v. POON LEE MENG t/a HIAP HENG CO. (a firm)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1527/1985

The court found that binding contracts were formed by oral discussions and telexes and that Clause 12 was not incorporated into any of the four contracts; consequently the defendant was obliged to deliver under the first three contracts and liable for non-delivery and resulting loss of resale profit (S$88,620); the defendant's counterclaim for the fourth contract failed for lack of proof and mitigation and attracts only nominal damages.
30 May 1988

EVERHARVEST GODOWN COMPANY LIMITED v. CHEUNG CHAP MING AND ANOTHER

Citation

EVERHARVEST GODOWN COMPANY LIMITED v. CHEUNG CHAP MING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA6968/1987

The court fixed the date of breach as the end of October 1987 when the plaintiff accepted the defendant's breach and held that under Section 53 the proper measure of damages is the difference between contract price and market price at that date, awarding $127,325 to the plaintiff.