Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Quality of goods

Legal area

Court

6 Jan 2022

ONEONTA TRADING CORPORATION v. CHAN TAT CHEE AND CHAN YUN FAT both t/a HOI SANG LOONG FAT KEE (海生隆發記) /HOI SANG LOONG

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 144
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1112/2019

The court accepted the Plaintiff's unchallenged documentary and witness evidence that the Defendant was the purchaser under the 35 invoices and rejected the agency, quality, price negotiation and estoppel defences; accordingly the Defendant is liable for the principal sum of US$860,533.47 and the Plaintiff is awarded pre-judgment interest at 3% per annum.
4 May 2009

CHEUNG CHUN HOI AND OTHERS v. SELLWAY TRADING LTD

Citation

CHEUNG CHUN HOI AND OTHERS v. SELLWAY TRADING LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1049/2005

The judge accepted the plaintiff's credible oral evidence supported by contemporaneous documents, found the defendant failed to prove its counterclaim (and was absent/unrepresented), attributed delays to the defendant's failures and third‑party processing, and therefore entered judgment for the plaintiff for the proved sums, dismissed the counterclaim and ordered interest from the date of writ excluding two specified dormant periods.
30 Aug 2006

GOLIK CONCRETE LTD v. TOWA CONCRETE LTD

Citation

GOLIK CONCRETE LTD v. TOWA CONCRETE LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ7267/2003

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success: the defendant's new assertions contradicted the trial record and an admission under cross-examination (as evidenced by the schedule) established full payment by MCWJV; additionally, the judge would have reached the same conclusion on quality for other reasons in the judgment.
26 Jul 2006

CHUNG WAI CHEMICAL LTD v. HING LUN PLASTIC FACTORY LTD

Citation

CHUNG WAI CHEMICAL LTD v. HING LUN PLASTIC FACTORY LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ620/2006

The court found the defendant's complaints about quality and non‑compliance credible and that the plaintiff's conduct waived the contractual 7‑day test‑report requirement; consequently genuine triable issues existed and summary judgment and strike‑out were inappropriate, so both summonses were dismissed and the defendant's counterclaim was not struck out.
29 Mar 2006

GLOBAL PRESTIGE LTD v. SEAPHONE TEXTILE LTD

Citation

GLOBAL PRESTIGE LTD v. SEAPHONE TEXTILE LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA146/2004

The court accepted the Defendant's expert evidence that manufacturing defects (contaminating fibre content, insufficient fabric weight and reduced seam/back-pocket strength) rendered the corduroy non-conforming to the purchase order and unfit for the known purpose (jeans); accordingly the Plaintiff was in breach, the Defendant was entitled to damages measured by the unpaid amount owed by the buyer less what the Defendant still owed the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff's claim was dismissed while the Defendant prevailed on its counterclaim for HKD 917,265; the indemnity claim was not ripe and no o…
15 Sept 2004

HSIN TEXTILES (HK) LTD v. SUPERKING TEXTILE LTD

Citation

HSIN TEXTILES (HK) LTD v. SUPERKING TEXTILE LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6531/2003

HSIN TEXTILES (HK) LTD v. SUPERKING TEXTILE LTD
1 Sept 1995

DAEDALUS BLU LTD. v. LESHONS ENTERPRISED LTD.

Citation

DAEDALUS BLU LTD. v. LESHONS ENTERPRISED LTD.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV111/1995

The judge found the goods were of substandard quality with no reasonable prospect of timely rectification; that constituted a failure by the seller to make available conforming goods and amounted to a renunciation which the buyer was entitled to accept; consequently the buyer validly called off the contract and recoverable damages were awarded.
15 Mar 1995

DAEDALUS BLU LTD. v. LESHONS ENTERPRISES LTD.

Citation

DAEDALUS BLU LTD. v. LESHONS ENTERPRISES LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL155/1993

Defendant failed to make available goods conforming to contractual requirements by the final extended shipment date; plaintiff validly accepted a repudiatory breach and is entitled to the pleaded damages (US$15,723.10) and a declaration of indemnity against claims by the buyer, with liberty for further directions on quantification if disputes arise.
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.
29 May 1990

UNIWAY (HONG KONG) CO LTD v. CHINA HUA YUAN CO LTD

Citation

UNIWAY (HONG KONG) CO LTD v. CHINA HUA YUAN CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1608/1989

Plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof that the variable capacitors were defective; contemporaneous testing and the tripartite memorandum supported compliance with the MEI Standard; the 13 July 1988 agreement settled quality disputes and obliged payment; accordingly the claim for breach of contract was dismissed and defendant awarded costs.