Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Uncertainty

Legal area

Court

20 May 1999

SAFE STEEL FURNITURE FACTORY LTD. v. LAMEX TRADING CO. LTD.

Citation

SAFE STEEL FURNITURE FACTORY LTD. v. LAMEX TRADING CO. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA12172/1996

The Agreement was not of indefinite duration because essential terms (minimum quantities and price mechanisms) were expressly specified only up to 1994 and there was no operative mechanism to extend those provisions; an implied term to negotiate post-1994 quantities would be an uncertain agreement to agree and therefore void; pre-contractual negotiations and subsequent conduct could not be used to reframe the contract, so the Plaintiff's claim failed.
23 Apr 1993

SUN WAH OIL & CEREAL LTD. v. GEE TAI TRADING CO. LTD.

Citation

SUN WAH OIL & CEREAL LTD. v. GEE TAI TRADING CO. LTD.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV206/1992

The Court held the telexes constituted a concluded contract; the phrase 'Force majeure/arbitration: standard terms to apply' was meaningless but not essential to the contract and therefore severable under Nicolene v. Simmonds; variances in the Letter of Credit were accepted or waived by the vendor; damages of US$415,000 awarded to the purchaser under Sale of Goods Ordinance s.53(3).
3 Jul 1990

PHILIPS HONG KONG LTD. v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Citation

PHILIPS HONG KONG LTD. v. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3288/1989

Clause 29, as drafted and read with the Appendix, contained penal features and defects (notably the minimum liquidated damages and the internal contradictions in pro‑rata reductions) such that it could operate as a penalty and was void for uncertainty; accordingly the plaintiff was declared not liable to pay liquidated damages under that clause.
3 Mar 1989

ARNHOLD & COMPANY LIMITED v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Citation

ARNHOLD & COMPANY LIMITED v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2438/1988

The liquidated damages clause was void for uncertainty because the contract failed to prescribe a definite mechanism to fix a daily sum within the stated range; alternatively, construing all terms including Special Condition No.2, the clause operated as a penalty (unreasonably punitive minimum), and therefore was unenforceable as liquidated damages, so the Government was not entitled to deduct under clause 63.
20 Jun 1974

SINGWAY CO LTD v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Citation

SINGWAY CO LTD v. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3826/1973

Outline Zoning Plans LH5/34 and LH5/34A were invalid ab initio because the explanatory notes attempted to create an impermissible flexibility/permission mechanism beyond the powers conferred by Section 4(1) of the Town Planning Ordinance and were void for uncertainty; the notes could not be severed without changing the plan's character; consequently the Building Authority could not validly rely on s.16(1)(d) to refuse approval, but the refusal stood on a valid discretionary ground under s.16(1)(g), so the plaintiff's building plans were not deemed approved.

Hong Kong Case Law

SAFE STEEL FURNITURE FACTORY LTD. v. LAMEX TRADING CO. LTD.

SUN WAH OIL & CEREAL LTD. v. GEE TAI TRADING CO. LTD.

PHILIPS HONG KONG LTD. v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

ARNHOLD & COMPANY LIMITED v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

SINGWAY CO LTD v. ATTORNEY GENERAL