What happens if the contract doesn’t say when the service must be completed?
When entering into a service contract in Hong Kong, one critical detail that parties sometimes overlook is specifying a completion date for the service. But what happens if your contract doesn’t include this key term? Understanding your rights and obligations under Hong Kong law can help you navigate such situations effectively.
The Legal Framework: Reasonable Time Under Hong Kong Law
According to section 6 of the Supply of Services (Implied Terms) Ordinance (Cap. 457), if a contract does not specify a completion date, Hong Kong law implies that the service must be performed within a "reasonable time." This legal provision ensures that service providers are held accountable for delivering their services promptly, even in the absence of an explicit deadline.
But what exactly constitutes a "reasonable" time? The answer depends on several factors, including:
- Nature of the Service: Complex or specialised services, such as custom installations or technical work, may naturally require more time than simpler tasks.
- Industry Standards: What is considered reasonable often aligns with common practices in the relevant industry.
- Specific Circumstances: External factors, such as delays caused by unavailable parts or unforeseen challenges, may also influence what is deemed reasonable.
Navigating Delays: Your Options as a Consumer
If you believe a service provider is taking too long to complete the work, you have options to address the issue. For instance, you can:
- Raise the Issue: Contact the service provider to discuss the delay and seek clarification on the expected completion timeline.
- Request Compensation: If the delay is unreasonable and causes you loss, you may be able to claim compensation, depending on the circumstances.
However, proving that a delay is unreasonable can be challenging. A notable example involved a 7-month delay in the installation of a supercharger. In Approach Industries Ltd v S & P Auto Ltd [2012] HKCU 1559, the court did not find a breach of section 6 because the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of what constituted a "reasonable time" for the installation. Additionally, the defendant demonstrated that the delay was caused by missing or unfit parts, which justified the extended timeline.
Additional resources
If you want to terminate the service contract, take a look at our Termination of Service Letter Template.
Need help navigating this issue? Check out Ask.Legal — our AI-powered legal assistant is ready to help 24/7.
