Last month, Alan of Handy Computer met Ben the sale representative of Computer Accessories Company to discuss the purchase of 10,000 sets of wireless mouse for computers. A special discounted price of HK$60 per units was agreed between Alan and Ben. The goods would be delivered within 21 days. Due to the special price offered, full payment must be made before the delivery. Ben showed Alan two sets of wireless mouse he brought with him, Alan checked and tested them with his notebook computer. After testing the two wireless mouses, he was impressed by their appearance and quality. Ben told Alan it was the best deal in town, and he promised that Alan can inspect the 10,000 pieces at any time before the delivery. Alan did not bother to do so. A week later Alan paid the full amount of HK$600,000 to Computer Accessories Company. On receipt of the 10,000 sets of wireless mouse, Alan found that their quality was inferior compared with the two wireless mouses tested. Furthermore, Computer Accessories Company refused to refund the HK$600,000 paid by Handy Computer.

Required: (a) Advise Handy Computer whether it has the legal right to claim against Computer Accessories Company for breach of the implied term under section 17 of the Sale of Goods Ordinance (Cap. 26) (SOGO). You are required to cite a relevant case to support your answer. (11 marks)

(b) Explain whether it would be possible for Computer Accessories Company to include a term in the sales contract to exempt its liabilities implied under section 17 of the SOGO. (4 marks)

(c) Handy Computer intended to take legal action against Computer Accessories Company to claim the HK$600,000 already paid. State whether the case involves criminal law or civil law. Explain which court or tribunal will hear Handy Computer’s case.