JOPARD HOLDINGS LTD v. LADEFAITH LTD AND ANOTHER

JOPARD HOLDINGS LTD v. LADEFAITH LTD AND ANOTHER

The court found the agent made an unqualified assurance to the purchaser, that the assurance was false as understood by the purchaser, that the agent lacked authority to make that representation on the vendor's behalf so the purchaser's claim against the vendor failed, but the agent breached its contractual and tortious duties to the purchaser by failing to make reasonable inquiries and thus is liable to repay the purchaser's forfeited deposit of HK$300,000; the agent's counterclaim for HK$200,000 was dismissed because the agent's breach caused the default.

Citation
JOPARD HOLDINGS LTD v. LADEFAITH LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff (purchaser): JOPARD HOLDINGS LIMITED; 1st Defendant (vendor): LADEFAITH LIMITED; 2nd Defendant (agent): CENTALINE PROPERTY AGENCY LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 November 2004
Case Number
HCA3775/2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Action (sale of Property, Misrepresentation, Agency) / Judgment (court of First Instance, 12 November 2004)
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim against 1st defendant dismissed; 2nd defendant's counterclaim dismissed; judgment for plaintiff against 2nd defendant for HK$300,000 plus interest; costs orders made as detailed.
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Negligent Misrepresentation, Ostensible/apparent Authority, Agent's Duty of Care, Rescission, Forfeiture of Deposit, Liquidated Damages, Estate Agency Practice Regulations
Source Language
EN
Contract Tort Agency Law Property Law Statutory Regulation of Estate Agents Misrepresentation Negligent Misrepresentation Ostensible/apparent Authority +5 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JOPARD HOLDINGS LIMITED

Plaintiff (purchaser)

LADEFAITH LIMITED

1st Defendant (vendor)

CENTALINE PROPERTY AGENCY LIMITED

2nd Defendant (agent)

Procedural Posture

Civil Action (sale of Property, Misrepresentation, Agency) / Judgment (court of First Instance, 12 November 2004)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the agent made a misrepresentation to the purchaser
  2. 2 Whether the agent had actual or ostensible authority from the vendor to make the representation
  3. 3 Whether the agent breached duties to the purchaser in contract and tort by failing to make reasonable inquiries

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the agent made an unqualified assurance to the purchaser, that the assurance was false as understood by the purchaser, that the agent lacked authority to make that representation on the vendor's behalf so the purchaser's claim against the vendor failed, but the agent breached its contractual and tortious duties to the purchaser by failing to make reasonable inquiries and thus is liable to repay the purchaser's forfeited deposit of HK$300,000; the agent's counterclaim for HK$200,000 was dismissed because the agent's breach caused the default.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim against 1st defendant dismissed; 2nd defendant's counterclaim dismissed; judgment for plaintiff against 2nd defendant for HK$300,000 plus interest; costs orders made as detailed.

Orders

  • Dismissed the plaintiff's claim against the 1st defendant
  • Dismissed the 2nd defendant's counterclaim