Movielearn Hong Kong Ltd v. Gateways Professional Services
|
DCCJ 1448/2008 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CIVIL ACTION NO. 1448 OF 2008 -------------------- BETWEEN
-------------------- Coram : His Honour Judge Chow Date of hearing : 27th August, 2008 Date of handing down Decision : 10th September, 2008 DECISION 1.This is the Plaintiff’s application for summary judgment in the sum of $71,484 against the Defendant, pursuant to Order 14 of the Rules of the District Court. 2.The Plaintiff is a publisher of titles in the educational and training market. Its claim against the Defendant is for goods sold and delivered. By a distribution agreement (“the Agreement”) made on 12.3.2007 made between the parties, the Plaintiff agreed to supply its products to the Defendant, which agreed to sell the Plaintiff’s products in Taiwan. Pursuant to this Agreement, in August and November 2007 and at the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff sold and delivered to the Defendant its products in the respective sums of $36,708 and $34,776, with interest at 2% per month from due dates of payment. 3.Invoice No. GW001 in the sum of $36,708 (principal $32,200 and interest thereon in the sum of $4,508 at the rate of 2% per month calculated up to 12.3.2008 from the due date of 31.8.2007) was rendered to the Defendant on or about 17.8.2007. Invoice No. GW002 in the sum of $34,776 (principal $32,200 and interest thereon in the sum of $2,576 at the rate of 2% per month calculated up to 12.3.2008 from the due date of 28.11.2007) was rendered to the Defendant on or about 14.11.2007 4.By a letter through its solicitors dated 30.3.208 the Plaintiff demanded payment from the Defendant. But the Defendant has failed to make any payment. 5.On 30.8.2007, the Defendant sent an email to the Plaintiff. The email read as follows:-
6.The Defendant did not attend the hearing of the Plaintiff’s application, but it has filed in an affirmation of Miss Wong Ka Kei (a director of the Defendant) dated 18.6.2008. In her affirmation Wong Ka Kei said that the Agreement had been cancelled by the Plaintiff. The details of the cancelling were set out in paragraph 3.2 of her affirmation. It was not disputed that the Agreement was signed on 12.3.2007. In her affirmation, Wong Ka Kei said that the Plaintiff did not sign a new agreement, and it regarded the cancelled Agreement as valid. The Defendant did not show at what point of time the Agreement had been cancelled and how it had been cancelled. 7.The Defendant did not dispute in its defence that the Plaintiff had delivered goods pursuant to the Agreement. It must have received the goods otherwise it would not have confirmed in its email dated 30.8.2007 that payment would be made at the end of September. In its defence the Defendant alleges that the parties are still negotiating the prices of the goods. This cannot be a valid defence because the Defendant accepted the goods at the price stipulated in the Agreement. In its defence the Defendant also asserts that the Plaintiff owes the Defendant a commission for the sale of the Plaintiff’s goods in Hong Kong. But this allegation is not particularized. It is a bare assertion. It did not put up any evidence to support this allegation. It did not even set out a figure to show the amount of commission allegedly owed by the Plaintiff to the Defendant. There is simply no defence to the Plaintiff’s claim. I therefore enter judgment in favour of the Plaintiff as claimed. 8.I order that the Defendant do pay the Plaintiff within 14 days the sum of $71,484, and further interests at the rate of 2% per month on the two principal sums of $32,200 and $32,200 respectively from 12.3.2008 until payment. Costs 9.I make an order nisi, to be made absolute in 14 days’ time, that the Defendant do pay the Plaintiff costs of this action (inclusive of this application), to be taxed, if not agreed.
The Plaintiff : represented by Mr. Raymond Chung of M/S Chung, Fong & Co., Solicitors. The Defendant : absent, unrepresented. |