Sonic Air Forwarders Enterprise Ltd v. Peter Chan t/a Man Fung Trading Co
Read the full judgment text of HCA 1620/1976 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 27 November 1976.
1. This is an appeal from the Registrar's decision granting unconditional leave to defend an action for payment of air freight. The appellant claims air freight in sum of $82,302.26. From the affirmation of Mr. Edwin Li filed on the 22nd September 1976 eight documents are exhibited. They are in the form of letters addressed to the appellant by the respondent setting out eight shipments of cargo to consignees in the U.S.A. and in Canada. In all these documents there is no indication that the resp
|
HCA001620/1976 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG HIGH COURT ACTION NO.1620 OF 1976 -----------------
----------------- Coram: Li, J. Date of Judgment: 27 November 1976 ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. This is an appeal from the Registrar's decision granting unconditional leave to defend an action for payment of air freight. The appellant claims air freight in sum of $82,302.26. From the affirmation of Mr. Edwin Li filed on the 22nd September 1976 eight documents are exhibited. They are in the form of letters addressed to the appellant by the respondent setting out eight shipments of cargo to consignees in the U.S.A. and in Canada. In all these documents there is no indication that the respondent signed those letters (requesting cargo to be airfreighted by the appellant on behalf of the respondent) in his capacity as agent of anyone. 2. The respondent denies liability on the ground that he was merely an agent of the consignees concerned when eight shipments were arranged. By his affirmation the respondent relies on extrinsic evidence of a verbal agreement between the appellant and his consignee to the effect that credits for airfreights were in fact given to the consignee rather than the respondent. The respondent also relies on the conduct of the previous transactions. 3. The appellant is suing on the documents. It is well settled principle that extrinsic evidence is not admissible to contradict the plain terms of a document unless there is an ambiguity in the terms of the document. In the present case there is no ambiguity that the respondent signed the documents which constitute the contracts for shipment in his personal capacity. The neglect to specify the rate of airfreights or the use of F.O.B. on these documents do not indicate that the respondent was acting in his capacity as an agent or cause any ambiguity as to the respondent's status. Having regard to articles 118 and 122 in Bowstead on Agency it appears to me that the respondent is liable for the airfreights and that he has no defence to the action. An agent who contracted in his own name did not cease to be contractually bound because it was proved that the other party knew when the contract was made that he was acting as agent - see Basma v. Weekes (1950) A.C. 441. 4. In the course of the hearing I raised the point that in all the eight documents the words "we guarantee payment to you" were used. However it is not the respondent's case that he assumes secondary liability as a guarantor. Nor is the respondent's case that the contracts are null and void for uncertainty. 5. In view of the foregoing I am of the opinion that the appeal should be allowed and that the appellant be granted leave to sign judgment against the respondent. Representation: |