港琛國際管理顧問有限公司 訴 納保科技有限公司

DCCJ 6500/2005

香港特別行政區

區域法院

民事司法管轄權

案件編號2005年第6500號

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

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

判案書 

引言

1. 原告人指受被告人委托，在2004年12月至2005年3月31日期間，根據雙方簽署的合作協議書替被告人進行產品推廣。合作協議書中被告人責任第3及第4段 (見審訊文件册第62頁)，被告人須每月支付原告人津貼費HK$25,000.00及上月營業額之15%利潤。被告人在支付了2004年12月及2005年1月的津貼費共HK$50,000.00後，拒絕支付2005年2月及3月的津貼費共HK$50,000.00及2005年1月、2月及3月的利潤共HK$328.00。被告人已在2005年3月29日終止合作協議書。

2. 原告人放棄利潤HK$328.00，在小額錢債審裁處對被告人申索HK$50,000.00，而被告人亦在小額錢債案中對原告人提出因原告人失實陳述及破壞合約損失的反申索HK$103,709.80。因反申索超越了小額錢債審裁處的司法管轄範圍，因此該申索及反申索被移送至區域法院處理。

原告人案情

3. 原告公司董事許曼芬女士(“許女士”)指她在2004年9月左右認識被告公司董事黃惠權先生(“黃先生”)並為被告公司設計了行銷計劃書，但基於價錢問題雙方不能同意合作。但雙方其後再次談判並達成協議。

4. 原告公司同意改變行銷計劃書中的收費方式，被告公司亦同意在合約開始的12個月內，每月支付原告公司行政交通津貼費用。雙方在2004年11月簽署合作協議書。協議書[乙方責任]第3段訂明被告公司須由2004年12月至2005年5月，每月支付原告公司HK$25,000.00的津貼費。被告公司在簽約時已預付了2004年12月的津貼費。

5. 雙方在合作過程中並不如意，在網絡連接、網絡付款及相關送貨的項目上均出現問題。曾有七名有意發展被告公司業務的夥伴到被告公司接受培訓，卻因效果極差而令有意發展者卻步。被告公司遲遲推搪其他月份的津貼費，原告公司在2005年2月7日才收到2005年1月的津貼費。

6. 在2005年3月29日被告公司發出終止合約通知書終止雙方合作協議。在被告公司多次拒絕支付2005年2月及2005年3月的津貼費後，原告公司才在小額錢債審裁處對被告人提出申索。在小額錢債審裁處提出申索時，原告公司亦提出根據協議書[乙方責任]第4段之15%加盟商利潤HK$328.00的申索。但因小額錢債審裁處的司法管轄範圍，原告公司放棄HK$328.00的申索。在案件移交區域法院後原告公司原可再加入HK$328.00的申索，但原告公司沒有修改申索，許女士在她的證人口供內寫:“我們只希望能拿回納保所答應要付的行政津貼費$50,000”，因此原告公司的申索只是2005年2月及2005年3月的津貼費HK$50,000.00。

被告人案情

7. 被告人的代表律師曾替被告人存檔了一份極詳細的抗辯及反申索書， 包括：

a. 協議書[甲方責任]第4段訂明原告公司在簽約後即須向被告公司提供整個銷售策劃藍圖，但原告公司從未提供任何銷售策劃藍圖。

b. 協議書[乙方責任]第3段訂明每月支付原告公司HK$25,000.00的津貼費有一默示的條款，即津貼費只是用來支付被告人作行政費用途。如原告公司在發展被告公司業務時招致行政費，被告人才須支付這HK$25,000.00的津貼費。

c. 在簽署的合作協議書前，原告公司對被告公司作出以下的失實陳述〔原文為英文〕：

“12.1) the Plaintiff had not in its possession or control over a well-established sales network further and/or alternatively, the Plaintiff had not the 10,000 Distributors; further and/or alternatively the Plaintiff had not in its possession or control over distributors to a reasonably scale and/or effective size; further and/or alternatively, the Plaintiff had not a staff team with represented qualification and scale;

12.2) the Plaintiff had no, or alternatively not shown any good experience, expertise and track record in the distribution of the FMCG, including beverage products;

12.3) the Plaintiff had no Sales Plan; further and/or alternatively, such Sales Plan, if any, was not, or alternatively not practically feasible and workable, particularly on beverage products;

12.4) the Plaintiff had not bought and, further or alternatively, utilized any of its premises at Concordia Plaza (康宏廣場) for operating the training classes for training the distributors.”

          d. 這些失實陳述是合作協議書的條件:

“14.1) It was an implied condition that the Plaintiff was able and should build and develop a quality sales result and a sound sales upward trend for the Nanowater; {the Plaintiff should recruit 50,000 new distributors, in the first month of the Cooperation Agreement, and recruit another 300,000 new distributors in the second month of the Cooperation Agreement}{**pls confirm & finalize}(sic);the Plaintiff should utilize its premises at Concordia Plaza(康宏廣場) for operating the training classes for training the distributors. Further, it were express conditions under Clause (-) of the Cooperation Agreement that:

14.2) under sub-clause 1, the Plaintiff shall create or make sales for Nanowater through its 10,000 Distributors;

14.3) under sub-clause 2, the Plaintiff shall, among other tasks, strategically take lead in the entire sales planning work; and

14.4) under sub-clause 4, the Plaintiff shall upon signing of the Cooperation Agreement provide to the Defendant the complete Sales Plan.”

          e. 因這些失實陳述，原告公司已違反了合作協議書的條件:

“15.1 a) In the first month of the term, i.e. the month of December in 2004, it was agreed that the Plaintiff should have achieved a sales undertaking in the sum of HK$22,032.00. In the said month of December in 2004, the Plaintiff made and realized a sales undertaking in the sum of zero or none at all. The Plaintiff fell short of 100% of the sales undertaking.

b) In the second month of the term, i.e. the month of January in 2005, it was agreed that the Plaintiff should have achieved a sales undertaking in the sum of HK$44,064.00. In the said month of January in 2005; the Plaintiff made and realized a sales undertaking in the sum of HK$2,050.00. The Plaintiff achieved a 5% of the sales undertaking.

c) In the third month of the term, i.e. the month of February in 2005, it was agreed that the Plaintiff should have achieved a sales undertaking in the sum of HK$440,640.00. In the said month of February in 2005, the Plaintiff made and realized a sales undertaking in the sum of HK$4,646.20. The Plaintiff achieved a bare 1% of the sales undertaking.

15.2 The Plaintiff has failed to create or makes sales through its 10,000 Distributors.

15.3 The Plaintiff failed to strategically take lead in the entire sales planning work.

15.4 The Plaintiff failed to provide the Defendant the complete sales plan upon signing of the Cooperation Agreement or at all.

15.5 The Plaintiff had not recruit 50,000 in the first month and another 300,000 new distributors in second month of the Cooperation Agreement; and the Plaintiff had not utilized its premises at Concordia Plaza (康宏廣場) for operating the training classes for training the distributors.”

f. 在2005年3月發現了這些失實陳述後，被告公司在2005年3月29日對原告公司發信撤銷合作協議書。因這些失實陳述被告公司無須支付還未支付的津貼費，及原告公司須交還已收到的HK$50,000.00津貼費。

“17. By reason of the Misrepresentations, the Defendant was entitled to rescind the Cooperation Agreement. Alternatively by reason of the Plaintiff's breaches of the said condition, the Defendant is entitled to rescind the Cooperation Agreement and the return of Disbursements for Administration Use. Further, the Defendant is entitled to withhold any further payment for the Disbursements for Administration Use.”

          g. 因原告公司的失實陳述，被告公司有以下的損失:

“(1)(i) By the permission of the Defendant, given by the Cooperation Agreement, the Plaintiff used and occupied an office at Room 1532, 15/F, Beverley Commercial Centre (the "Office") for the term of the Cooperation Agreement. The Office is held under the name of Pit Mei Trading Co Ltd, a major shareholder of which is Mr Wong Wai Kuen, [a shareholder] and a director of the Defendant;

(ii) It was implicit in the licence that the Plaintiff should have fully discharged its obligations in the Cooperation Agreement for such use and occupation of the Office;

(iii) In breach of the conditions of the Cooperation Agreement, the Plaintiff has not fully nor satisfactorily discharged its obligations for the use and occupation;

(iv) There is now due and owing to the Defendant the sum of HK$40,800.00 being the loss and damage of mesne profits for the Office provided to the Plaintiff pursuant to the Cooperation Agreement, calculated on the basis of four months from December 2004 to March 2005 at the rate of HK$10,200.00 per month;

(2)Further, there is now due and owing to the Defendant the loss and damage of costs for the support provided to the Plaintiff pursuant to the Cooperation Agreement.

Particulars

(i) Repayment of the sum of HK$5,710.00 being the loss and damage of the costs for the rates, management fees, electricity, telephone hunting lines and installation fees paid by the Defendant pursuant to the Cooperation Agreement;

(ii) Repayment of the sum of HK$999.80 being the loss and damage of the costs for the use and depreciation of the office equipment, including IBM Computers, provided to the Plaintiff pursuant to the Cooperation Agreement;

(iii) Repayment of the sum of HK$1,200.00 being the loss and damage of the costs for the use and depreciation of the office furniture provided to the Plaintiff pursuant to the Cooperation Agreement;

(iv) Repayment of the sum of HK$5,000.00 being the loss and damage of the costs for the provisioning of the training course to the Plaintiff pursuant to the Cooperation Agreement;

(3) In the premises, the Plaintiff has had and received the total sum of HK$50,000.00 being the Disbursements for Administration Use and to the use of the Defendant, who became and is entitled to be repaid the said sum.

(4) Difference between the contract price and the value of the consultancy services in the circumstances of breach of the conditions.

(5) As a result of the matters set out above, the Defendant has suffered loss and damage. The Defendant's business relating to Nanowater was worthless or its sales was far less than HK$7,911 and such business can only be run at a loss. The Defendant has lost the sum of HK$1,373,463.00 being the cost of sales.”

          h. 被告公司並對原告公司作出反申索如下:

 “(1) A declaration that he has validly rescinded the Cooperation Agreement; alternatively the rescission of the Cooperation Agreement;

(2) Return of the sum of HK$50,000.00 and the sales commission paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff pursuant to the Cooperation Agreement;

(3) Repayment of the sum of HK$40,800.00being the loss and damage of rent/mesne profits for the Office provided to the Plaintiff pursuant to the Cooperation Agreement;

(4) The damages for costs for supports provided by the Defendant to the Plaintiff pursuant to the Cooperation Agreement;

(5) Further or in the alternative, damages for fraudulent misrepresentation whereby the Defendant was induced to enter into the Cooperation Agreement and make the said payment pursuant thereto;

(6) Damages for breach of Cooperation Agreement;

(7) Alternatively, an order that the Disbursements for Administration Use payable by the Defendant to the Plaintiff be reduced by such sum -as the court considers appropriate to represent the diminution in value of the disbursements for administration use and for the use of Defendant by reason of the said breaches of the Cooperation Agreement;

(8) If necessary, the Defendant will rely upon his counterclaim in this action by way of set-off in reduction or extinction of the Plaintiff's claim;

(9) Interest pursuant to sections 49 and 50 of the District Court Ordinance on the damages

(10) Further and/or other relief(s); and

(11) Costsof this action.”

對申索的分析

8. 原告公司的申索是基於合作協議書[乙方責任]第3段。第3段寫：

“由04年12月至05年5月津貼費為每月港幣$25,000，而05年6月至11月為每月港幣$20,000。乙方要在簽約當天預付一個月津貼$25,000，第二期津貼在〔04年12月〕每月底支付，直到合約完結。”

9. 被告公司在2005年3月29日才終止合作協議書，即合作協議書有效期為2004年12月至2005年3月，共4個月。被告公司亦承認在合作協議書有效期中，共支付了$50,000津貼費。根據合作協議書的條文，被告公司確實欠原告公司$50,000津貼費。

對抗辯的分析

10. 被告公司對原告公司申索有三項抗辯論點：

〔論點一〕：原告公司違反了協議書[甲方責任]第4段，沒有提供任何銷售策劃藍圖。 

〔論點二〕：每月支付原告公司HK$25,000.00的津貼費有一默示的條款，即津貼費只是用來支付被告人作行政費用途。

〔論點三〕：因原告公司對被告公司作出失實陳述，被告公司才簽署合作協議書。

論點一的分析:

11. 許女士在作供時承認原告公司確沒有提供銷售策劃藍圖給被告公司。她指這是因為與被告公司未能達成共識，故此擱置往後決定。但合作協議書的條文規定在簽約後，原告公司即須向被告公司提供整個銷售策劃藍圖，並無規定原告公司和被告公司達成共識後才須提供銷售策劃藍圖。

12. 原告公司明顯已違反了協議書的責任。但被告公司並不能因原告公司違反了協議書的責任而無須負責協議書中自己該負的責任。在合約一方違反責任後，合約另一方有權選擇終止或繼續合約。在Chitty on Contracts, volume I ,第24-002頁中作者寫:

“An innocent party, faced by a repudiatory breach, is therefore given a choice: he can either treat the contract as continuing (“affirmation” of the contract) or he can bring it to an end (“acceptance of the repudiation”). He must “elect” or choose between these options. Further, it is sometimes said that there is no other options open to the innocent party;…”

Affirmation. Where the innocent party, being entitled to choose whether to treat the contract as continuing or to accept the repudiation and treat himself as discharged, elects to treat the contract as continuing, he is usually said to have “affirmed” the contract. He will not be held to have elected to affirm the contract unless, first, he has knowledge of the facts giving rise to the breach, and, secondly, he has knowledge of his legal right to choose between the alternatives open to him. Affirmation may be expressed or implied. It will be implied if, with knowledge of the breach and of his right to choose, he does some unequivocal act from which it may be inferred that he intends to go on with the contract regardless of the breach or from which it may be inferred that he will not exercise his right to treat the contract as repudiated….”

13. 在簽約後沒有提供銷售策劃藍圖，原告公司已明顯違反了協議書的責任，但被告公司在2005年2月7日卻支付了第二期的津貼費給原告公司，明顯被告公司已選擇繼續合約。

14. 在抗辯及反申索書第15段，被告公司已清楚指出他知道原告公司在簽約後沒有提供銷售策劃藍圖並且已違反了協議書的責任。第15段寫：

“… the Plaintiff was in breach of the aforesaid conditions.

Particulars

…

15.4 The Plaintiff failed to provide the Defendant the complete sales plan upon signing of the Cooperation Agreement or at all.”

15. 在抗辯及反申索書第17段，被告公司已清楚指出他知道因原告公司在簽約後沒有提供銷售策劃藍圖而有權終止合約。第17段寫：

“By reason of the Misrepresentations, the Defendant was entitled to rescind the Cooperation Agreement….”

16. 如支付第二期的津貼費不足以表示被告公司已選擇繼續合約，則被告公司在2005年3月29日以原告公司的營業額未能達到協議書的營業目標數為由，而根據[甲方責任]第6段終止合約，正好表明了被告公司不會因原告公司沒有提供銷售策劃藍圖而終止合約的意願。

17. 由此可見，雖然原告公司已違反了協議書，但因被告公司選擇繼續合約，所以被告公司還須支付在合約終止前的津貼費。

論點二的分析:

18. 被告公司須負責證實“津貼費只是用來支付被告人作行政費用途”乃協議書中默示的條款。但被告公司並沒有對這論點提出任何證據。被告公司唯一的證據，即黄先生的證人供詞中對這論點隻字不提。因此論點二不能成立。

論點三的分析:

19. 被告公司亦須負責證實被告公司向原告公司指控的每一項失實陳述，但在黃先生的證人供詞中，他只寫:

“ Trusted Nano has been cheated, Nano deny liability on the ground that there was misrepresentation of Kong Sum and a material breach of contract. Nano told Kong Sum that they have mislead Nano in believing their ability, believing their networking, believing their 10,000 distributors and made Nano entered into an agreement while Kong Sum was far from having the ability to deliver.”

20. 唯一在黃先生的證人供詞中提到的是有關“10,000 distributors”的失實陳述。在協議書中原告人的責任只包括：“甲方要於合約期間，利用甲方所擁有的一萬個加盟商竭力為乙方建立銷售業績。”

21. 在盤問黃先生時，許女士指她在小額錢債審裁處聆訊時已向被告公司代表展示了一萬個加盟商的詳情。黃先生表示他並不知情。因被告公司並無證據指出“擁有一萬個加盟商”是失實陳述，因此論點三亦不能成立。

對反申索的分析

22. 雖然被告公司對原告公司作出了極其複雜的反申索，但在被告公司唯一的證據(即黃先生的證人供詞)中卻對反申索隻字不提。因被告公司對反申索有證案責任，而被告公司並無提出任何證據可滿足有關的責任，因此被告公司的反申索被撤銷。

頒令

23. 基於上述原因， 本席有以下頒令：

(1)  原告公司的申索得直，被告公司須支付原告公司HK$50,000.00。

(2)  被告公司的反申索被撤銷。

訟費

24. 因雙方均沒有法律代表，本席認為在訟費方面應按《區域法院規則》第62號命令第9(4)條規則以整數代替經評定的訟費較合適。

25. 原告公司由許女士代表，她的薪金為每月HK$35,000.00，以每月工作26天計，每天薪金為HK$1,346.00〔以HK$1為最低單位計算〕。審訊兩天，訟費為HK$2,692.00。另加上原告公司證人許玉珠一天的薪金 〔HK$20,000.00 /26 〕HK$769.00及兩天來回交通費共HK$201.00。

26. 在本案正式審訊前，區域法院聆案官分别在2006年4月12日、2006年8月22日及2006年9月12日的聆訊中頒下「訟費歸於訟案中」的命令。許女士指她出席該三次聆訊，共需三個半小時，以每天工作八小時計，訟費為HK$588.00。另加上及三天來回交通費共HK$301.00。

27. 因此本席亦頒令，除已經聆案官定額的訟費外，被告公司亦須支付原告公司本案的訟費，定額為HK$4,551.00。