Luen Ngai Machinery Factory (Suing As A Firm) v Wong Yuen Wah And Another

CourtDistrict Court (Hong Kong)
Judgement NumberDCCJ8024/1968
SubjectCivil Action
DCCJ008024/1968 LUEN NGAI MACHINERY FACTORY (SUING AS A FIRM) v. WONG YUEN WAH AND ANOTHER

DCCJ008024/1968

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF HONG KONG

HOLDEN AT KOWLOON

CIVIL JURISDICTION

Action No.8024 of 1968

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

BETWEEN:
Luen Ngai Machinery Factory
(suing as a firm)
Plaintiffs
AND
WONG Yuen Wah 1st Defendant
CHAN Siu Foon 2nd Defendant

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

Coram: Judge Cons.

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. The plaintiff in this Action is the manufacturer of various types of machinery which are themselves used in the manufacture of small plastic animals and the like. On the 24th of May, 1968 he was approached by the two defendants and after some discussion and a look around his factory a contract was entered into between his own company on the one hand and on the other a limited company expressed to be the Sheung Chi Fat Plastic Factory Co. Ltd., which was apparently a company which the two defendants intended to form with themselves as the two directors, but which at that time was not yet in existence. For this party it was signed by Mr. WONG, the 1st defendant, to whom I will for convenience hereafter refer merely as "the defendant", Mr. CHAN, the 2nd defendant, having admitted liability at the first hearing of this Action and taken no further part herein. The Contract in question is now document 1 of Exhibit 1.

2. Delivery of the particular machinery ordered was made by the plaintiff on 27th May, and on the 17th and 24th of June. Documents No ...(illegible) .2, 3, 4 and 5 of Exhibit 1 refer. I can find no mention in these of the hair laminating machine, i.e. the last item of the contract, but no one has queried it in the proceedings and I assume that it was delivered in order. Payment of the deposit had already been made as required under the contract and a further payment by cheque was made in July. But a balance still remains outstanding for which the plaintiff now sues. Included in the balance claimed, however, appears to be a sum for $64 in respect of work done by the plaintiff in August, 1968 upon certain knives belonging to the defendant and referred to in Exhibit 7. This sum cannot be recovered upon particulars of claim limited exclusively to goods sold and delivered and the claim of $7,315 must be reduced accordingly.

3. The defendant now alleges the machinery was defective in certain instances and...

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