Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Hong Kong | 1-800-335-6202

Chan Hon Wing T/a Swatow Wong Lee Co v Oriental Gloves Co Ltd

Judgment Cited authorities 1 Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date16 December 1968
Year1968
Judgement NumberDCCJ8191/1968
Subject MatterCivil Action
CourtDistrict Court (Hong Kong)
DCCJ008191/1968 CHAN HON WING t/a SWATOW WONG LEE CO v. ORIENTAL GLOVES CO LTD

DCCJ008191/1968

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF HONG KONG

HOLDEN AT KOWLOON

CIVIL JURISDICTION

Action No.8191 of 1968

-----------------

BETWEEN
CHAN Hon Wing trading as Plaintiffs
Swatow Wong Lee Company
AND
Oriental Gloves Company Limited 1st Defendants
LAM Cheong Yong 2nd Defendant

-----------------

Coram: Judge Cons.

Date of Judgment: 16 December 1968

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

1. This action is brought by the plaintiff as drawee of a cheque alleged by him to have been given by the 2nd defendant in return for a personal loan, but by the defendants for the purpose of redeeming certain goods deposited by them as security to the 3rd party in respect of a debt for which the plaintiffs was also a guarantor. The defendants further allege that the plaintiff failed to make such a redemption and that therefore the consideration for the cheque has wholly failed. I did not grasp the reason why in these circumstances the cheque was not made out to the third party, but in any event, having heard such witnesses as were called, I have no hesitation in finding that the version put forward on behalf of the plaintiff is the correct one.

2. The question then follows who is liable upon the cheque. It is drawn in common form upon the Chiyu Banking Corporation Ltd. and bears at the top left hand corner a printed reference number and a rubber-stamped account number. Pausing here, I would like to comment, but with the greatest respect to some of my brethern that these numbers can have no bearing upon the question of who is liable upon the cheque. They are matters peculiar to the appropriate bank and its customer and are placed on the cheque, to my mind solely for the convenience of these parties. It is improper practice to attribute from them consequences to a third party. It might also be a dangerous practice, leading possibly to arguments that the cheque is therefore not an unqualified order or is one directed to something other than a person or a legal entity.

3. In the bottom right-hand corner the cheque bears a rubber stamp in the name of the 1st defendant company, underneath which is a dotted line upon which the 2nd defendant has signed his own name, and beneath which are rubber-stamped the words "Managing Director".

4. Upon this question, my attention was drawn to the following cases:

Mo Yiu Kwan v. Four Union Trading Company and
another (1963 D.C.L.R. 71)
East Asia Co. v. Chan Chun Yuen (1964 D.C.L.R. 280)
Chapman v. Smethurst 1909 (K.B. 927).

In addition I have referred myself to the cases of Cheng Chi v. Hing Fat Cheung Co.,Ltd. (1965) D.C.L.R. 165, Hong Kong Travel Bureau Ltd. v. George Wittsack (1968 D.C.L.R. 1) and Capital Printing Co. v. South America Plastics Factory (which is Victoria District Court...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT