Yuen Shek-sang v Hung Ching Travel & Enterprise Ltd

CourtDistrict Court (Hong Kong)
Judgment Date25 June 1980
Judgement NumberDCCJ1139/1980
Subject MatterCivil Action
DCCJ001139/1980 YUEN SHEK-SANG v. HUNG CHING TRAVEL & ENTERPRISE LTD

DCCJ001139/1980

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF HONG KONG

HOLDEN AT KOWLOON

CIVIL JURISDICTION

ACTION NO. 1139 OF 1980

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

Between:
YUEN Shek-sang Plaintiff
and
Hung Ching Travel & Enterprise Limited Defendant

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

Coram: B.T. Caird, D.J.

Date of Judgment: 25th June, 1980.

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. This is an action for breach of contract brought by a Mr. YUEN Shek-sang against Hung Ching Travel & Enterprise Limited. The plaintiff is a merchant and in fact had the action been correctly pleaded the proper plaintiff would be Remoco (H.K.) Ltd. However, Mr. Chan on behalf of the defendant is not taking the point and I am proceeding as though the plaintiff were entitled to sue. It would be a matter that could have been easily rectified by amendment or adding the company as the plaintiff. It is unfortunate that this occurs where even those that plead fail to appreciate the distinction between ...(illegible) limited liability company and a man who runs it and probably owns it. I might also add that another matter was dealt with during the trial is. there was a great deal of hearsay evidence from the plaintiff. This was tendered without objection as his wife was called to give the original evidence.

2. It is claimed by the plaintiff that on the 12th July, 1978 he purchased from the defendant a normal fare (economy class) air ticket from Hong Kong to Tehran and return for the sum of $5,330. The defendant is in fact a travel agent and it is clear from the evidence of a Miss Chan, Manageress of the company, that the defendant is not an agent of Pan American World Airways Inc. but in fact has dealt through another agent who may or may not have (the evidence is silent as to this) a proper agency relationship with Pan Am.

3. The defence is simple. The defendant claims that the ticket issued to the plaintiff is what is known as a barter air ticket and the defence through Miss Chan also claimed that the plaintiff's wife knew full well what he was getting. There is no doubt that the wife in all her dealings with the defendant was noting as the plaintiff's agent.

4. I turn now to consider the type of ticket. This was issued for a flight to take place on the 23rd July 1978 to the plaintiff and on the face of the ticket itself in the third column on...

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