LEE WAI KWAN v. CHAN TAK YAN ERIC AND ANOTHER

LEE WAI KWAN v. CHAN TAK YAN ERIC AND ANOTHER

The court held the purchaser rescinded prematurely; the vendor had not failed to answer requisitions on title such as to entitle immediate rescission because the encumbrances were matters of conveyance removable at completion and practical mechanisms (tender of balance, split cheques, undertakings) were available;...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
LEE WAI KWAN v. CHAN TAK YAN ERIC AND ANOTHER
Parties
Purchaser: Lee Wai Kwan; Vendor: CHAN TAK YAN ERIC; Vendor: CHAN KIT HO ADA
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 July 2000
Case Number
HCMP4863/1999
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons Sale and Purchase of Property / Judgment (19 July 2000)
Outcome
Plaintiff's summons dismissed; Defendants' counterclaim allowed; Defendants declared entitled to rescind the Agreement for Sale and Purchase and forfeit the deposit; damages to be assessed; costs ordered in favour of Defendants.
Legal Topics
Rescission of Contract, Good Title, Requisition on Title, Deposit Forfeiture, Charging Orders, Vendor Undertakings, Costs, Damages
Source Language
en
Property Law Contract Law Equity Civil Procedure Rescission of Contract Good Title Requisition on Title Deposit Forfeiture +4 more

Source-derived case record

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lee Wai Kwan

Purchaser

CHAN TAK YAN ERIC

Vendor

CHAN KIT HO ADA

Vendor

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons Sale and Purchase of Property / Judgment (19 July 2000)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the vendor failed to answer requisitions on title satisfactorily entitling the purchaser to rescind
  2. 2 Whether the purchaser was premature in rescinding the Agreement for Sale and Purchase
  3. 3 Whether encumbrances (charging orders) amounted to defects of title or matters of conveyance removable by the vendor

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the purchaser rescinded prematurely; the vendor had not failed to answer requisitions on title such as to entitle immediate rescission because the encumbrances were matters of conveyance removable at completion and practical mechanisms (tender of balance, split cheques, undertakings) were available; the purchaser failed to tender the balance or take reasonable steps to facilitate completion; therefore the defendants were entitled to rescind and forfeit the deposit and recover damages, with damages to be assessed by the Master.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's summons dismissed; Defendants' counterclaim allowed; Defendants declared entitled to rescind the Agreement for Sale and Purchase and forfeit the deposit; damages to be assessed; costs ordered in favour of Defendants.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's summons dismissed
  • Defendants' counterclaim allowed