26 Apr 2013
周佩詩以博通發展公司的名義經營 v. INTERFID LTD
- Citation
- 周佩詩以博通發展公司的名義經營 v. INTERFID LTD
- Court
- District Court
- Case number
- DCCJ105/2012
The November and March Quotation & Confirmation documents were valid, binding contracts because they contained all essential terms and contemporaneous emails and conduct evidenced acceptance; alleged oral agreements to vary prices were not proven and conflicted with the parol evidence rule and the parties' conduct; the March Invoice reflected an oral agreement to share the cost of undelivered 50,000 green hang tags and is payable; accordingly judgment entered for plaintiff for HK$398,500 and the defendant's counterclaim dismissed.