Legal Hearing Analysis: S.S Electronics vs KKR-tech electronics

This case study analyzes the legal hearing between S.S Electronics and KKR-tech Electronics, focusing on a dispute over defective electrolytic capacitors. The case involves breach of contract, with the plaintiff alleging the supply of faulty goods. The analysis examines the court proceedings, arguments from both plaintiff and defendant counsels, and the evidence presented. Key issues include the defendant's knowledge of the defective goods and the question of compensation. The judgment determined that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation, but the specific party responsible for payment remained unresolved, pending further legal action. The case highlights the complexities of contract law and the importance of establishing liability in disputes involving corporate acquisitions and product quality. The analysis considers the arguments, evidence, and the judge's queries and decisions, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal process and outcomes.

Legal Hearing
Legal Hearing Law
[DATE]
[Company name]
[Company address]

Case law Hearing
The case is S.S Electronics vs KKR-tech electronics. This case law has been taken into
consideration to assess the issues and honorable court’s decision.
Date 18October 2018, Thursday
In the court of instance of the high court of Hong Kong, there was a proceeding between S.S
Electronics vs KKR-tech electronics. The hearing of the case in which I visited the court was on
18th October 2018.
The judgment was passed on 22/01/1996 and this case was again appealed and still due for
judgment by the court.
Case hearing and Performa
This court was flooded with the numerous numbers of people and the proper legal law format
was followed by the lawyers and other legal responsible parties. The case was decided between
the plaintiff and defendant and represented by the lawyers. The case was to be decided on the
basis of the facts by the judge who used his own discretion to make the judgment (Andrews,
2016).
The matter pertaining to dispute
There 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 electrolytic
capacitors?
Whether the defendant was entitled to receive the compensation from the plaintiff company or
not?
COURT PROCEEDINGS

The KKR tech electronics is an electronics company which is associated in sale and purchase of
electrolytic 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 capacitors
which was supplied by the respondent company. The respondent company refused to accept that
the electrolytic capacitors were defective. There was the breach of the contract as aggrieved
party pleads on the basis of the supply of the defective goods to him. The respondent counsel
stated that they have not given any kind of defective electrolytic capacitors as the company was
taken over by the competitor company. Now the question arises as to whether the respondent
company 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 the
time 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 their
statements. The plaintiff counsel stated that the respondent was the only one who from the
beginning does not want to pay the compensation. Counter to that the defendant counsel pleaded
that there has been a big mistake as we are not entitled to pay because the whole act was done by
the previous holder of company and the claim was made from the party who is now holding the
ownership of the company (Gluckman, 2018). This case was decided to provide justification on
the 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 holding
rights, powers and liabilities were shifted to the respondent itself then and there ,the claim have
been made. To this the respondent counsel stated that we do know that but since the transaction
of sale of electrolytic capacitors was made by the previous company even after the rights was
taken away by the former company (Fried, Charles, 2015).There was the conflict of the interest
to 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 the
takeover by our company. This not only strengthens the case but also allow judges to analysis the
case in deep. We were having no knowledge about such sale because we would not allow such
sale from the beginning and the moment we got to know about such act we filed the suit against
the previous company. The defendant filed the complaint report the moment after the delivery

was made to the respondent and this shows that there were no intention of the respondent to
cause any pain and trouble, it’s just the intention of the previous holding company to dignify the
goodwill of the prior company. As my company is best known for its best work so will be taking
the same for the future perspective (Arbel, 2015).
Evidence taken under consideration
The plaintiff counsel submitted the complaints that the electrolytic capacitors were defective and
the record of the defective electrolytic capacitors were submitted to the court by the plaintiff. The
same was recorded at the time when hearing was preceded in the court (Fried, Charles. 2015).
The plaintiff counsel also submitted the testing of the electrolytic capacitors was not done by the
defendant and after that they also sold those electrolytic capacitors to plaintiff because of which
we suffered loss. This case reveals the actions of the plaintiff and other actions which could be
taken by plaintiff in the contract case (Fried, Charles, 2015).
The respondent counsel submitted the documents of the takeover done by the respondent
company are submitted (Bankins, 2015).
The respondent counsel also submitted that after knowing the fact that the electrolytic capacitors
were supplied to the respondent, the complaint was made as those were not authorized by the
defendant to supply them and the respondent also contacted the plaintiff the moment after
knowing the facts that those electrolytic capacitors were supplied and we were having no
knowledge to the fact that those electrolytic capacitors were defective. The counsel was
submitted with a view to reveals the facts that all the electrolytic capacitors were supplied to the
respondent and he failed to perform his duty. Nonetheless, the conflict between both parties was
based on the non-performance of their duty (Hoeppner, Freund,, & Depoorter, 2017).
Respondent plead on the basis of the fact that defendant or supplier did not perform his duty and
failed to deliver the expected quality. All the electrolytic capacitors which were supplied by the
suppliers were found to be defective and less quality stocks. Respondent argued on the fact that
he was not liable to or bound to buy those stocks and electrolytic capacitors which were not to
the match of the quality and defective (Burrows, 2018).

The respondent counsel also submitted that the act was done by the previous holder company
and the intention of the previous holder of the company was to commit fraud and harm the
reputation of the respondent. The suit against that company has already been filed by the
respondent for such act (Bray, 2016).
The respondent counsel stated that there was no knowledge regarding the testing of the
electrolytic capacitors because if the respondent from the beginning wanted to sell those
electrolytic capacitors then he would have gone through all the testing and there would not have
let such problem from the beginning and in concern the act which has not done by respondent he
has been sued for the compensation of which he is not entitled to give (Hoeppner, Freund, &
Depoorter, 2017).
Listening to this amazing arguments the judge asked his queries to the both the counsel’s as to
whether the plaintiff is entitled to the compensation or not.
1. Is respondent intentionally taking the pea of no knowledge or is he was truly having no
knowledge about the act of the previous company holder.
2. Whether the company is entitled to pay the compensation to the plaintiff.
3. What will be the basis on which plaintiff could ask for the performance of the contract by the
seller?
It is analyzed that parties (plaintiff decide that they were having no knowledge about such sale
because we would not allow such sale from the beginning and the moment we got to know about
such act we filed the suit against the previous company (Stremitzer, 2017).
Now to the above questions the honorable judge decided that the question as to the intentionally
taking the plea of no knowledge is void because the document pertaining to the complaint date
clearly stated that the moment they realized such kind of act has been done by the previous
holder of the company and there has been no mistake of the respondent. The respondent
statement was wide and clear and his act is clearly visible. Those acts were legitimate and he did
the right thing. There was proper judicial case law were assessed and determined on the basis of
the fact that whether the plaintiff and defendant would be liable to contract (Shi, Zhang, &
Boucher, 2018).

The question relating to whether the plaintiff is entitled to the compensation from the respondent
or not is that the defendant is not entitled to pay any compensation because it was the wrongful
act done by the previous holder of company (Qian, & Strahan, 2007). The compensation will be
paid by the previous holding company not by the former holding company for that there shall be
a suit to be filed by the party which claims the compensation from the appropriate party. For that
in the matter between the respondent and the previous holder of the company the suit pertaining
between them shall explicitly determine the finality of the compensation because we do know
according to the fact and the documents which were provided to the court were considerable but
without listening to the other party or the previous holder of the company the court cannot
determine the finality. It is final that the compensation has to be paid to the plaintiff but by
whom this can be only decided when the suit which is pending between these two parties. The
fact on the basis of the compensation has been decided on the basis of the facts and issues.
However, plaintiff would be paid compensation on the basis of the contract made between the
parties. It is identified that plaintiff would be liable for the payment as he did not get what he was
promised under the contract (Cheung, 1983). However, payment or compensation to him is still a
misery as who will pay him compensation to him either the old owner who entered into the
contract with him or the new owners who bought the old firm. This is something based on the
discretion of the judges and matters. Respondent and the previous holder of the company are
determined and concluded on the basis of the facts and identified issues (Ruskola, 2017).
Judgmental decision
The KKR tech electronics was associated in sale and purchase of electrolytic capacitors.
In this case, dispute between the parties to the contract was determined for the contract of sale of
electrolytic capacitors which was supplied by the respondent company. In this case, respondent
company failed to deliver the quality products and liable to towards the penalties give to plaintiff
(Calomiris, et al. 2017). Therefore, it could be inferred that plaintiff will get the compensation
for the wrong doing and non-performance of the contract by the respondent. However, it is still
yet to decide which party will pay compensation to clients. It was assessed that the counsel was
submitted with a view to reveals the facts that all the electrolytic capacitors were supplied to the
respondent and he failed to perform his duty. Nonetheless, the conflict between both parties was
based on the non-performance of their duty (Svantesson, 2016). Respondent plead on the basis

of the fact that defendant or supplier did not perform his duty and failed to deliver the expected
quality (Fried, Charles. 2015). This case was still pending and need to be decided on the basis of
the facts of the contract between the plaintiff and defendant (Gibbs, et al. 2016)
Conclusion
After assessing the case and legal matter on this, it was found that plaintiff was liable to
get the compensation and other payment. However, in this case, court still needs to decide which
party will be liable to pay compensation to plaintiff. This case is determined on the basis of the
contract law and other issues. The court also directed that the payment shall be made to the
plaintiff and the interest for the period until the compensation has been made shall also be given
to the plaintiff. The court also direct that the payment of the cost of litigation shall also be paid
by the party who loses the suit. Now in the end, it could be inferred that all the cost and interest
payment along with the principle compensation amount will be paid by the new party who
bought the old firm. This payment will be made to plaintiff as compensation for the time being in
force. This case is still need to be decided and will be done on the basis of the case. It was found
that this case will be based on the facts and will be decided on the discretions of the judges and
they will make their decisions on the available facts and issues.

References
Andrews, N. (2016). Remedies for Breach of Contract. In Arbitration and Contract Law (pp.
279-333). Springer, Cham.
Arbel, Y. A. (2015). Contract remedies in action: Specific performance. W. Va. L. Rev., 118,
369.
Bankins, S. (2015). A process perspective on psychological contract change: Making sense of,
and repairing, psychological contract breach and violation through employee coping
actions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(8), 1071-1095.
Bray, S. L. (2016). The System of Equitable Remedies. UCLA L. Rev., 63, 530.
Burrows, A. S. (2018). Contract, Tort and Restitution—A Satisfactory Division or Not?.
In Restitution (pp. 3-53). Routledge.
Calomiris, C. W., Larrain, M., Liberti, J., & Sturgess, J. (2017). How collateral laws shape
lending and sectoral activity. Journal of Financial Economics, 123(1), 163-188.
Cheung, S. N. (1983). The contractual nature of the firm. The Journal of Law and Economics, 26(1),
1-21.
Davis, M. C. (2016). Constitutional Confrontation in Hong Kong: Issues and Implications of the Basic
Law. Springer.
Fried, Charles. (2015) Contract as promise: A theory of contractual obligation. USA : Oxford
University Press,
Gibbs, H. K., Munger, J., L'Roe, J., Barreto, P., Pereira, R., Christie, M., ... & Walker, N. F.
(2016). Did ranchers and slaughterhouses respond to zero‐deforestation agreements in the
Brazilian Amazon?. Conservation Letters, 9(1), 32-42.
Gluckman, M. (2018). Ideas and procedures in African customary law: studies presented and
discussed at the Eighth International African Seminar at the Haile Sellassie I University,
Addis Ababa, January 1966. Routledge.
Hoeppner, S., Freund, L., & Depoorter, B. (2017). The Moral-Hazard Effect of Liquidated
Damages: An Experiment on Contract Remedies. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical
Economics JITE, 173(1), 84-105.

Hoeppner, S., Freund, L., & Depoorter, B. (2017). The Moral-Hazard Effect of Liquidated
Damages: An Experiment on Contract Remedies. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical
Economics JITE, 173(1), 84-105.
Qian, J., & Strahan, P. E. (2007). How laws and institutions shape financial contracts: The case
of bank loans. The Journal of Finance, 62(6), 2803-2834.
Ruskola, T. (2017). Legal orientalism. In Foucault and Law(pp. 29-84). Routledge.
Shi, P., Zhang, W., & Boucher, J. P. (2018). Dynamic Moral Hazard: A Longitudinal
Examination of Automobile Insurance in Canada. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 85(4), 939-
958.
Stremitzer, A. (2017). The Moral-Hazard Effect of Liquidated Damages: An Experiment on
Contract Remedies.
Svantesson, D. J. B. (2016). Private international law and the internet. Wolters Kluwer Law &
Business.