Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sale by sample

Legal area

Court

5 Oct 2023

MJH INTERNATIONAL B.V. v. ROME INTERNATIONAL HANDBAG COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2441
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA294/2021

The contract was a sale by description and by sample under S.15 and S.17 of the Sale of Goods Ordinance; tested masks from the 3rd and 4th shipments failed to meet the KN95 95% filtration standard so the Defendant breached the contract; Plaintiff proved loss and is entitled to damages for overpayment, freight/storage, reasonable legal costs and foreseeable loss of profits for the contracted supply but not for an uncommunicated additional order, which was too remote.
30 Aug 2021

PERPETUAL WEALTH (HONG KONG) LTD v. BE SOLUTIONS CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2539
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1905/2018

The court refused to give any directions on expert evidence because the parties failed to properly identify the real issues in dispute, to frame appropriate questions for experts, and to identify suitably qualified candidates; the court held that without those prerequisites it would not grant leave for expert evidence and emphasised the preference for single joint experts for quantum while allowing that separate experts on defects might be justified if properly formulated applications are made.
5 Mar 2021

CHEUNG PO YUK ALAN t/a HONG KONG PO LUNG PLASTIC FACTORY v. PROCESS PLASTIC MATERIAL CO LTD

Citation

[2021] HKDC 250
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3105/2016

On the evidence (no expert analysis, incomplete visual proof), the court found the alleged white spots existed but that plaintiff failed to prove the F2 materials breached implied conditions of merchantable quality, correspondence with sample or fitness for purpose; the printed 7‑day rejection and interest terms were not treated as part of the parties' agreement by course of dealings; plaintiff had used up materials and could not validly reject them; March 2016 confirmation did not bind defendant to absolve payment without return of goods; accordingly plaintiff's claim dismissed and defendant…
1 Nov 2016

TANG CHIN LUEN AND ANOTHER v. COOL WEDDING LTD

Citation

TANG CHIN LUEN AND ANOTHER v. COOL WEDDING LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA68/2015

The High Court held the essence of the parties' contract was the provision of professional photography and make-up services at the specified venue, with albums and prints incidental; therefore the contract was for services not goods, the Supply of Services (Implied Terms) Ordinance applied, the defendant repudiated the contract by delivering unacceptably poor photographs, and the application for leave to appeal on a question of law was refused because the defendant's challenge was not arguable.
20 Jul 2015

CHUM HING LIN v. PANG KI CHEUNG

Citation

CHUM HING LIN v. PANG KI CHEUNG
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3040/2012

On the balance of probabilities the defendant breached the 2nd Agreement by failing to supply goods made of the agreed material (coloured glass); there was no proven variation to a 3rd Agreement; the plaintiff validly deducted agreed refund installments and was entitled to repayment of deposits; defendant's counterclaim failed except for the admitted $18,315.
23 Jan 2014

PRESTIK LTD t/a FREDERICK L.C. LUI & COMPANY v. HANG FAI CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS (GROUP) LTD t/a QUICK STEP SHOP

Citation

PRESTIK LTD t/a FREDERICK L.C. LUI & COMPANY v. HANG FAI CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS (GROUP) LTD t/a QUICK STEP SHOP
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2073/2012

The court found the contract was a sale by sample but the express term that "colours and shadings may vary from the sample" qualified (but did not entirely exclude) the statutory implied term so as to permit variation in the colours and shadings of the finished product; therefore the plaintiff was not entitled to reject the goods and the defendant was entitled to judgment on its counterclaim for the balance of the contract price of $9,235.
9 Sept 2013

HOPEFUL MEAT LTD v. WAN WOO FROZEN MEAT LTD

Citation

HOPEFUL MEAT LTD v. WAN WOO FROZEN MEAT LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4533/2011

There was no sale by sample because there was no discussion or knowledge of unit size at the time of the Second and Third sales, no express term was established, the five-fold test for implying a term failed on the facts, and the survey report was unreliable (mixing goods) and could not establish the size of goods from the First Invoice; therefore Wan Woo wrongfully rejected the goods and Hopeful Meat was entitled to recover the shortfall and storage charges net of allowable deductions; Wan Woo's counterclaim was dismissed.
6 Sept 2013

CHI CHOI COMPANY LTD v. HONG KONG ASSOCIATION OF YOUTH DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

CHI CHOI COMPANY LTD v. HONG KONG ASSOCIATION OF YOUTH DEVELOPMENT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA21/2013

Leave to appeal granted on two legal questions because they are reasonably arguable: (1) whether the contract was entire or divisible such that partial acceptance would defeat right to reject (s13 SOGO); (2) whether the contract was a sale by sample and what constituted the sample (s17 SOGO). Leave refused on staircase delivery charge claim because the express waiver of transportation fee covered delivery charges and trade usage cannot override express terms.
30 Apr 2013

BRAND VISIONAIRE LTD v. DEBREU LTD

Citation

BRAND VISIONAIRE LTD v. DEBREU LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1281/2011

On the balance of probabilities plaintiff failed to prove the cause of the USB failures or that any representation was false and relied upon; the court rejected the plaintiff's technical reports as unreliable and found pre-contract examination/testing by CPL and plaintiff's own expertise meant exceptions in s.16(2)(b) and s.16(3) SOGO applied; therefore no liability for breach of implied terms or misrepresentation and claim dismissed.
16 Nov 2011

WELLTUS LTD v. FORNTON KNITTING CO LTD

Citation

WELLTUS LTD v. FORNTON KNITTING CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA349/2007

Bulk yarn delivered was materially inferior to the samples and unfit for the known purpose (knitting specified garments); therefore plaintiff's claim for price fails and defendant is entitled to recover proven losses on its counterclaim of $1,017,434.29 together with costs and interest.