WONG HUNG CONSTRUCTION CO LTD 訴 H.H. ROBERTSON (NEA) LTD

DCCJ3562/2004

香港特別行政區

區域法院

民事司法管轄權

案件編號2004年第3562號

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

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

判案書

1.  建築處（Architectural Services Department）（“ASD”）是Police Roadside Mirror Check Point 位於Man Kam To Border Control Point改善工程的僱主。該工程的主承建商是Free Form Construction Company Limited，而Wong Hung Construction Company是工程的次承判商，原告人則是Wong Hung Construction Company的承判商。被告人是該工程的物料供應商。有關的物料是“Kingspan KS 1000 Optimo”sandwich panels。 

2.  在修訂的申索陳述書，原告人指稱於2004年1月17日、2月6日和3月12日達成三個協議。原告人指被告人違反該三個協議，要求它為此賠償損失；被告人否認原告人的指控，它提出反申索，要求原告人向它賠償未支付的合約餘款$30,100。原告人在書面的結案陳辭表示它不會追討涉及第一個協議的申索。

3.  2004年4月7日，原告人的律師致函被告人，指責後者違反合約，這是第二和第三個合約的申索根據，該函有以下的內容：-

‘	1.	We are instructed that at around 29th December 2003, our client contacted you for supply of Wall Penal system, your Mr. George Yim offered our client a “MEGATEC WALL” a concealed-fix polyurethane insulated wall panel system for our client’s building project at Man Kam To Control Point.  The Sample that Mr. George Yim provided was sent to the Architect, who approved the quality.  On 20th January 2004, our client faxed and sent you drawings (with dimension) for the Order.  Our client paid HK$12,900.00 in 6th February 2004 as deposit, which is 30% of the total value (HK$43,000.00) of the goods ordered.  At all times Mr. George Yim was aware that our client needed the supplies urgently.
	2.	After the series of pursuits, events and modifications, the Wall Penal was finally delivered on 1st April 2004.
	3.	On 2nd April 2004, our client informs your Mr. George Yim that the Wall Penal that you delivered on 1st April 2004 were of different material from the sample that you have submitted, and requested for a guarantee certificate of the material to be submitted to my client before the 7th April 2004.
	Up until today our client have received no such guarantee certificate, and in the absence of which our client, apprehensive of wrongful material having been delivered, have ordered that the HK$30,100.00 issued, but post dated to the 7th April 2004, be countermanded.
	We are instructed to inform you that our client rejects all the Penal Walls that you have delivered on the 1st April 2004 for breach of implied terms of sale by sample and demands the walls to be replaced by the polyurethane insulated wall panel system the our client have ordered, to be delivered within the next 2 days, at the same contracted price.’

4.  原告人的證人是Wong Chau Hung（“Wong”），而被告人的證人是Lam Tse Lun（“Lam”）和Yim Chung Chee（“Yim”）。他們分別是被告人的architectural designer 和regional sales manager。

第三個協議

5.  2003年12月29日，原告人向被告人傳真，要求Yim提供一份“Quotation for Equivalent of Kingspan K 1000 Optimo sandwich panel”。根據Wong的證供，‘The Project includes the supply and installation of “Kingspan KS 1000 Optimo” sandwich panels (“the Contract Material”) or its approved equivalent as the building enclosure (i.e. wall claddings) of new mirror check point office.  The core material of the Contract Material was a layer of rigid, Polyurethane Foam (“PU”)。’ 於同日，被告人建議使用Megatec Wall with core material of rigid polyurethane Foam (PU), 以代替Kingspan KS 1000 Optimosandwich panels。

6.  2004年1月26日，Yim傳送一份傳真給Wong，傳真的內容是：“Having checked with our factory in China, we would like to confirm the panel will be fabricated as per the samples shown that is silver colour and embossed finish PUF2 finish, overall thickness 50 mm, module width 900 mm”。在接收了這份傳真後，Wong致電給Yim，在商討後，Wong同意購買所需的wall panels。

7.  在證人陳述書的第5段，Wong說：-

‘

In or about December 2003, I approached the Defendant for the purpose of obtaining the supply of the Contract Material.  I provided the Defendant with Page PS/1/2 of ASD Particular Specification – Part 1, the drawing for wall panel detail and the required quantity of the Contract Material to enable the Defendant to work out a quotation for the Plaintiff’s consideration.  Mr. George Yim of the Defendant (“Yim”) informed me that they did not have the Contract Material and recommended me to use their Italian-origin Megatic Wall.  Yim represented to me that similar to the Contract Material, Megatec Wall also had rigid PU as its core material.  I told Yim that any alternative materials used other than the Contract Material must be approved by the Architect.’

被告人卻說，它沒有獲得一份“Particular Specification – Part 1”的副本，該副本的第1.3段規定：“All materials and their color to be submitted to architect for approval before application.”Yim和Lam在作供時說，他們在2004年3月知悉Putty White Panel不獲接納時，他們才知悉材料需要獲得建築師的批准。在被詰問時Wong承認他記不起他有沒有有把Particular Specification交給被告人。2004年6月30日，被告人去信予Construction Arbitration & Litigation Consultants Limited。在信中，被告人說，

“

3)

According to your above letter (Ref.: RT04/16/HH040617.TXT) dated 17 June 2004, your client declared that our materials delivered on 1st April 2004 were to comply with ASD’s specified requirement(s).  However, we did not receive and have no record of any such specification information imposed or passed by your client to our office as reference or conditions of purchase.”

就上述的指稱 ，原告人沒有作出回應，本庭就此點接納被告人的證據。

8.  約於2004年2月3日，原告人接獲被告人一張報價單。被告人要求31m² Formawall PU composite panels的價錢為$47,121。報價單聲明“All materials to be fabricated upon confirmation of dimensions and sizes.”

9.  2004年2月6日，經商議後，Lam與Wong達成panels體積的cut list。Lam承諾會於2004年2月底之前把31m² Formawall PU composite panels 交付給原告人，他跟着把$12,900的訂金交給林。但直至2004年2月底，被告人沒有交付貨物。

10.  2004年3月2日，Lam提議採用1000 mm panels with putty white colour，並交付予Wong一個樣本，在傳真內被告人說：“Fortunately, if you can confirm the order today, we can deliver the panel to Hong Kong before early next week.”

11.  其後Wong把樣本送往建築師，2004年3月3日建築師拒絕接納putty white的顏色，並要求被告人再次交付具有合適顏色的sandwich panel以符合建築師的要求。

12.  約於2004年3月10日，建築師接納有關的物料，但要求它的外層的顏色必須是銀色。

13.  2004年3月12日，被告人傳送一份傳真給Wong，在傳真中被告人說，“Please kindly note that all panel and flashing should be ready within 19 days, if we can receive your written confirmation on or before 13 March 2004.”2004年3月13日，原告人同意訂單的修訂。

14.  2004年4月1日，被告人把貨物送往上水賽馬會路，交予原告人。就4月1日和2日的情況，在證人陳述書Wong有以下的描述：-

“	26.	On 1st April 2004, it was raining.  The Defendant delivered certain wall panels (“Delivered Material”) to the Plaintiff at Jockey Club Road, Sheung Shui.  …… Since the Defendant’s truck did not have any restricted area permit, it could not access the subject site.  …… The Delivered Material were then loaded to the Plaintiff’s truck.  The Defendant’s truck driver asked payment for the Delivered Material but I told him I needed to wait for the foreman of the Defendant to inspect the Delivered Material.  The driver said if I did not give him a cheque, he would load the Delivered Material back to his truck and left.  He said he did not have any time to wait for anybody.  I had no alternative but handed to him the Plaintiff’s cheque no. 034741 for HK$30,100.00 drawn in the Bank of East Asia.  Because the Delivered Material did not been inspected, I post-dated the cheque to 7th April 2004.  ……
	27.	I met Lam at the site at about 4:30 p.m.  I told Lam that the colour of the core of the Delivered Material appeared to be different from the previous sample.  However, Lam assured me that they were the same as the sample they provided and the one approved by the Architect.  The slight difference in colour would not affect the approval from Architect.  He also said I could look for him if there was any problem.  ……
	28.	In the morning of 2nd April 2004, the Plaintiff’s workers removed the wrappings of the Delivered Material.  I noted that the core material of the Delivered Material was EPS instead of PU.  I also noted that there was rusting at the edge of the panels and the junction key was different from the previous submissions.  I wrote to the Defendant immediately asking for its written guarantee on or before 7th April 2004 that the Delivered Material were equivalent to the Contract Material, Megatec Wall and the Formawall sample they submitted and that it would be approved by the Architect.
	29.	I phoned the Defendant after the letter and spoke to Yim.  I complained to Yim about the delay.  I also told him that the colour and the core material of the Delivered Material was different from the Contract Material, Megatec Wall and Formawall sample.  Yim represented to me that the core material was compatible to the approved sample and the Architect would approve it.  To avoid delay, he told me to cut the panels and proceed with installation.  He said I could look for him and the Defendant if there was any problem. ……
	30.	……
	31.	To avoid further delay to the Project, the Plaintiff cut and commenced the installation work on 2nd April 2004.  The Plaintiff also instructed its workers worked overtime to catch up the delay.
	32.	……
	33.	The Defendant failed to provide the required written guarantee by 7th April 2004.  The Plaintiff countermanded the cheque no. 034741.”

23.  在陳辭書的第48至第50段，原告人有以下的陳辭：-

‘	48.	The Plaintiff had made it very clear to the Defendant from the beginning that it is required to install Kingspan Panel or its equivalent.  The word “equivalent” means not only equivalent in terms of quality and performance but also approved by the Architect.
	49.	The Defendant is also aware that the Plaintiff must submit a sample together with the relevant information in relation to the proposed material to the Main Contractor, who will then submit the same to the Architect for approval [128-137].  Accordingly, apart from providing the quotations and the relevant information, the Defendant had also provided the Plaintiff with samples of the Megatec Wall (which the Defendant denies), Formawall and Putty White Panel respectively.
	50.	It is submitted that since the Architect will decide whether or not to approve a proposed material based on the sample provided, it is plain that the purpose of exhibiting the sample is not merely to indicate the nature of the panels.  On the contrary, it is one for goods in agreement with the sample………’

24.  本庭難以了解“equivalent”為何會包含“also approved by the Architect”的意義。“equivalent”意指實物，“approved by the Architect”是一種程序，是抽象的事，前者怎會包含後者？本庭不接納這論點。

15.  在陳辭書的第53至55段，原告人指出，第三個協議是憑樣本售貨的協議。就涉及第三個協議的申索是按貨品售賣條例第17（2）（a）條提出的。第17條規定：

“	17.	憑樣本售貨
		（1）	凡售賣合約中有一項明訂或隱含的條款，意思是該合約是憑樣本售貨的，該合約即憑樣本售貨的合約。
		（2）	憑樣本售貨的合約，有以下各項隱含條件——
			(a)	整批貨品須在品質上與樣本相符；
			(b)	買方須有合理機會，將整批貨品與樣本作比較；
			(c)	貨品並無任何令其不可商售且不會在對樣本進行合理檢驗時顯現的缺點。”

25.  被告人則指出，原告人所要的貨物是“Kingspan panel or its equivalent”；它說，“the parties’ intention was clearly that a range of panels would do so long as they could fulfill the same function”。這是正確的論點，亦反映出事實的真相。

26.  被告人在陳辭書的第36段又指出“…… when the Defendant first proposed the Megatec Wall panels, no sample was required but merely a catalogue was provided to the Plaintiff.  If the parties’ intention was all along that a sale by sample was intended …… it fails to explain why no Megatec Wall sample was required by the Plaintiff together with the catalogue.”這是事實，亦是正確的論點。

27.  在陳辭書的第37段，被告人說：-

“

37.

Subsequently, after the Defendant provided the Putty White Panel sample and it was rejected by the Architect because of its external colour was not silver, the Defendant asked whether a re-submission of sample was required.  The Plaintiff answered that it was not necessary as long as the future delivered goods’ external colour is silver or its close match. [80] The Defendant submits that it is rather inconceivable that if a sale by sample was really intended, the Plaintiff would not have required the Defendant to re-submit a proper sample.  It should also be noted that the original Putty White sample was 1000 mm in width.  [105] However, it was subsequently agreed that the widths of the delivered panels would be either 145, 229 or 900 mm.  [272-277] Therefore parties’ intention was that neither the colour nor the dimensions of the delivered panels needed to the same as the Putty White sample ……”

這是正確的論點，亦反映出事實的真相。

28.  在陳辭書的第53段原告人說：-

“

53.

The Defendant case is that it is not a sale by sample because the Plaintiff is not required to re-submit a sample of the Putty White Panel for approval after it has been rejected by the Architect.  However, this Court will recall that Wong’s oral evidence is that by that time the Architect had already approved the core material of the sample which was PU.  It was on such basis that the Architect agreed to accept the Putty White Panel on condition that the external colour was silver.”

原告人沒有反駁有關上述有關“delivered panels”體積的論點；即使第53段有關顏色的事是事實，“panel”外表的“silver”顏色在程度上亦會有深淺程度之分，如果這是憑樣本售貨的合約，為甚麼原告人不要求被告人交付樣本以作出批核。這顯示出這不是憑樣本售貨的合約。

29.  被告人在陳辭書的第38段說，“Regarding the core material which the Plaintiff has placed considerable emphasis on, it should be recalled that in Wong’s oral evidence, he admitted that he did not mention that the core material of the panels needed to be PU.  …… the parties’ concern all along was regarding the surface finish of the panels.  …… Therefore the parties’ intention regarding the core material of the future delivered panels must have been that it should be able to carry out the same function as that of the Putty White sample but no more.”

30.  在陳辭書的第39段被告人作出了以下的結論：-

“

39.

It is therefore submitted that in summary, the parties’ contemplated that the colour of the delivered panels did not have to the same as the Putty White sample; and the dimensions did not have to be the same.  Further, it was not in the parties’ contemplation that the delivered material had to the same as the Putty White sample in terms of the core material either as long as they performed the same function.  Indeed, if such a case were a sale by sample, every case where there is a sample exhibited would easily be a sale by sample, which is of course not supported by authorities.”

本席裁定，這是正確的論據。

31.  本庭裁定與訟雙方的售賣合同並不是以憑樣本售貨的合同。這是原告人申索的根據，因此申索的基礎不能成立。

32.  即使這是憑樣本售貨的合同，被告人的行為並不引致原告人的損失。2004年4月1日，Wong檢視交付的鑲板（panel），他察覺鑲板的核心物料不是PU，但是他接受了鑲板的交付，並在第二天把鑲板裝設。在它的陳辭書的第68段，原告人說：-

“

68.

This Court will recall that the Delivered Material was accepted on the basis that Lam and Yim had assured Wong that there should be no problem with the performance of panels.  Wong also gave evidence that Yim further authorized him to install the Delivered Material.  He explained that he had no choice but to start cutting the Delivered Material because (i) the Project was seriously delayed and (ii) he could no longer contact Yim or Lam after 2nd April 2004.  Therefore, the Plaintiff submits that there is no mutual agreement between the parties.”

33.  在證人陳述書的第31段，Wong陳述了他裝設鑲板的理由，但他沒有提及第（ii）個理由。第（ii）個理由不能成立，因為他可以以貨物不符合合同的規定把鑲板退回給被告人，但他沒有這樣做。他必定知道當他把鑲板切割後，他便不能將它們恢復原狀，Wong指稱“Yim further authorized him to install the Delivered Material.”本庭認為本案根本不存在授權（authorized）的事，當Wong接受交付的貨物後，原告人便是貨品的物權擁有人，它可按自己的意願處置貨物（包括把它們裝設），而不需被告人對它授權。原告人承認它最遲已在2004年4月2日已接受了貨物。在它的陳辭書中，它已承認它已接受了貨物，在陳辭書的第68段原告人說，

“	This Court will recall that the Delivered Material was accepted on the basis that Lam and Yim had assured Wong that there should be no problem with the performance panels.”
	（底綫後加）

34.  如果被告人付運的貨物不符合合約的規定，原告人有權退貨，但他沒有這樣做，它反而接受了貨物，因此它不能以貨物不符合合約的規定向被告人作出申索。

35.  2004年4月28日，黃致函被告人，函中說：-

“	After discussion and explanation to the Architect by your Mr. So, the Architect expressed they may accept the material provided you can be prove that the materials are equivalent or better than in both quality and performance.”

36.  2004年4月30日，被告人給予以下的回覆：“Without any hesitation, we can provide a guarantee of the standard product performance for our supplied Formawall panels providing your company can honour your issued cheque …… dated 7 April 2004 for settling the 70% balance payment in full of our supplied Formawall panel products.”

37.  原告人沒有支付兌現支票以付餘下70%的貨款，它在陳辭書中指出：“It is the Defendant’s case that it did not cause the loss of the Plaintiff.  The rationale is that had the Plaintiff paid for the balance of the purchase price, the Defendant would have provided the guarantee to the Architect who may approve the use of the Delivered Material.  However, it is the Plaintiff’s submissions that the loss and damages suffered by the Plaintiff is a direct consequence of the Defendant’s breach.  The Defendant was in breach of the 3^rd agreement by failing to provide panels that correspond with the sample approved by the Architect.  Under such circumstances the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay for the balance of the purchase price was discharged.”原告人在2004年4月2日把鑲板裝置，這顯示原告人已接受了交付的貨品，它便必須支付貨品的貨款，因此原告人的論據不能成立。本席裁決，被告人沒有引致原告人損失的論據成立。

第二個協議

38.  Wong 指出，在2004年2月6日，Lam告訴他，31m² Formawall PU composite panels最遲將於2004年2月底交付予原告人，Wong接納該交貨日期，在他的證人陳述書第14段，Yim說：-

“

On or about 6 February 2004 the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant a deposit of $12,900.  At this juncture, the Plaintiff has never supplied to the Defendant the Shop Drawings and the Engineering Details.  Only overall architectural layout part drawings were supplied, and preliminary panel sizes and flashing details were discussed on 6 February 2004.  Therefore, overall material ordering cannot be finalized, settled or agreed.”

39.  在它的信中（日期為2004年3月26日）被告人才詳列有關貨品的體積，在陳辭辭書的第26段，原告人說，“The Plaintiff accepts that the dimensions were finalized in the Defendant’s letter dated 26^th March 2004.  However, it is the Plaintiff’s case that by 6^th February 2004, it had already provided with the Defendant all the drawings, dimensions, flashing and fastening details that were necessary to confirm stocks availability. …… Wong gave evidence and Yim agreed during cross-examination that the amendments to the dimensions subsequent to 6^th February 2004 were not substantial and did not affect the overall dimensions and the supply of the material ……”如果在2004年2月6日的日期是最後的交貨日期，那就不會有2004年3月26日的詳細體積的最終決定，這反映出在2004年2月6日的決定只是初步的決定，本庭因此不接納原告人的說法。

40.  就有關第二個協議的其中一項損失是“prolongation cost”，由2004年3月份有關panels並沒有被交付，因此被告人在這個月份不會有“additional supervision costs”，它亦無提出證據證明在這方面的損失。

41.  基於上述的理由，本庭撤銷原告人的申索，並裁決被告人的反申索成立。本庭頒令，原告人須於14天內支付原告人$30,100，以及其利息，利息由2004年4月7日起計，直至債項清償為止，利率則以終審法院首席法官藉命令所決定的單利率計算。

訟費

42.  本席頒下臨時訟費命令：原告人須支付被告人本案的訟費（包括聘請大律師的費用）。如與訟雙方未能同意訟費的款額，訟費款額由訟費評定官評定。如在14天內，與訟任何一方不向本庭提出申請，是項訟費命令作實。