Legal Hearing. Legal Hearing Law. [Date]. [Company name

Added on - Sep 2019

Trusted by 2+ million users,
1000+ happy students everyday
Showing pages 1 to 3 of 9 pages
LEGAL HEARINGLegal Hearing Law[DATE][COMPANY NAME][Company address]
Case law HearingThe case is S.S Electronics vs KKR-tech electronics. This case law has been taken intoconsideration to assess the issues and honorable court’s decision.Date 18October 2018, ThursdayIn the court of instance of the high court of Hong Kong, there was a proceeding between S.SElectronics vs KKR-tech electronics. The hearing of the case in which I visited the court was on18thOctober 2018.The judgment was passed on 22/01/1996 and this case was again appealed and still due forjudgment by the court.Case hearing and PerformaThis court was flooded with the numerous numbers of people and the proper legal law formatwas followed by the lawyers and other legal responsible parties. The case was decided betweenthe plaintiff and defendant and represented by the lawyers. The case was to be decided on thebasis of the facts by the judge who used his own discretion to make the judgment (Andrews,2016).The matter pertaining to disputeThere are several matters which have been decided and pertaining to dispute in this case.However, mainly two disputes to the cases have been identified and assessed in this case.Whether the defendant was having knowledge of the act of selling the defective electrolyticcapacitors?Whether the defendant was entitled to receive the compensation from the plaintiff company ornot?COURT PROCEEDINGS
The KKR tech electronics is an electronics company which is associated in sale and purchase ofelectrolytic capacitors. In this case, dispute between the parties to the contract was determined.Dispute arose between them in respect of sale and purchase of defective electrolytic capacitorswhich was supplied by the respondent company. The respondent company refused to accept thatthe electrolytic capacitors were defective. There was the breach of the contract as aggrievedparty pleads on the basis of the supply of the defective goods to him. The respondent counselstated that they have not given any kind of defective electrolytic capacitors as the company wastaken over by the competitor company. Now the question arises as to whether the respondentcompany is entitled to receive the compensation for the defective electrolytic capacitor or not.This question was based on the terms and condition of the contract which was decided at thetime of formation of the contract between the plaintiff and defendant (Andrews, 2016).The most interesting thing in the court was the arguments between the counsels to prove theirstatements. The plaintiff counsel stated that the respondent was the only one who from thebeginning does not want to pay the compensation. Counter to that the defendant counsel pleadedthat there has been a big mistake as we are not entitled to pay because the whole act was done bythe previous holder of company and the claim was made from the party who is now holding theownership of the company (Gluckman, 2018). This case was decided to provide justification onthe fact whether aggrieved party was liable to buy all the defective goods from the defendant(Andrews, 2016).The plaintiff counsel pleaded that the official liquidator was appointed and all the acts of holdingrights, powers and liabilities were shifted to the respondent itself then and there ,the claim havebeen made. To this the respondent counsel stated that we do know that but since the transactionof sale of electrolytic capacitors was made by the previous company even after the rights wastaken away by the former company (Fried, Charles, 2015).There was the conflict of the interestto decide whether the new company will be liable to perform all the acts of the old company.Nonetheless, facts were very strong on the fact that the previous company did the act after thetakeover by our company. This not only strengthens the case but also allow judges to analysis thecase in deep. We were having no knowledge about such sale because we would not allow suchsale from the beginning and the moment we got to know about such act we filed the suit againstthe previous company. The defendant filed the complaint report the moment after the delivery
Desklib Logo
You are reading a preview
Upload your documents to download or

Become a Desklib member to get access