CEAR'S INTERNATIONAL COMPANY LIMITED v. UNITED ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURE (A FIRM)

1987 No.A4915

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

HIGH COURT

___________

__________________________

ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES

__________________________

1. This action arose out of a series of transactions in which the Plaintiff company purchased from the Defendant quantities of headphone radios which were then sold on to overseas customers. The Plaintiff claims damages arising out of complaints by those customers that radios supplied to them were defective, the Plaintiff having had to pay compensation to its customers.

2. On 1st October, no notice of intention to defend having been given, the Plaintiff obtained Final Judgment against the Defendant for a sum of agreed damages in respect of 2 of the transactions and Interlocutory Judgment for damages to be assessed in respect of others. The purpose of the hearing was to assess those damages.

3. The evidence for the Plaintiff consisted of one witness, Mr. Chandru Samtani, a director of the Plaintiff, supported by a Bundle of Documents to which he made reference in the course of his evidence.

4. Mr. Samtani's evidence can be summarised as follows -

5. By the first of five contracts between the Plaintiff and Defendant, dated 12th March 1987, the Plaintiff purchased from the Defendant, inter alia, 800 Model HP-1000 radios. The radios were then sold to a customer in Andorra. The customer complained that 700 of the radios were defective, and the Defendant paid US$2,000.00 in compensation by crediting the customer's running account with the Plaintiff.

6. By the second contract, dated 31st December 1986, the Plaintiff bought 2,000 radios of the same model, which they. sold to a customer in the Canary Islands. The customer complained that a substantial number of the radios were defective and the Defendant, paid US$2,000.00 in compensation.

7. By the third contract, dated 13th March 1987, the Plaintiff bought 10,000 radios of the same model, which they sold to another customer in the Canary Islands. After complaints of defects, the Plaintiff paid the customer US$3,500.00 as compensation.

8. By the "fourth" contract, which in fact consisted of two contracts dated 6th and 16th January 1987, the Plaintiff purchased a total of 2,000 radios of the same model, which it sold to a customer in Dubai. The customer returned the whole consignment as defective. In correspondence, the Defendant agreed to pay to the Plaintiff HK$44,300.00 compensation if it failed to repair the radios to the Plaintiff's satisfaction. The radios were never returned to the Plaintiff, and this HK$44,300.00 is the sum for which Final Judgment has been entered. However, the Plaintiff claims further damages associated with the rejected consignment in the sum of US$1,281.00, being made up by US$201.00 clearing charges in Dubai, return freight and clearing charges US$680.00, and additional cost of purchasing substitute goods to send to the customer of US$400.00.

9. By the fifth contract, dated 9th March 1987, the Plaintiff bought 2,000 radios, this time of a different model HP1080, of which it sold 1,950 to a customer in Spain. The customer has demanded US$3.00 per radio as compensation for defects, but the Plaintiffs' believe they can settle for US$2,160.00 and only request this sum in damages.

10. I see no reason why I should not accept the evidence adduced on behalf of the Plaintiff, and 1 assess damages in the sums claimed, being a total of US$10,941.00.

11. I award costs of this assessment to the Plaintiff, to be taxed if not agreed.