ASGAIN CO LTD v. CHENG KA YAN

ASGAIN CO LTD v. CHENG KA YAN

The court found the Defendant failed to prove payment of $750,000 to the Plaintiff; only $67,000 was proven as part payment. There was no factual agreement between the parties to treat payment as made (no mutual adoption of the Receipt Clauses) and the Defendant made part payments after the Assignment, so contractual estoppel and s.18(1) do not bar the Plaintiff's claim. Judgment for Plaintiff for the unpaid balance of $683,000 with interest and costs was entered.

Citation
ASGAIN CO LTD v. CHENG KA YAN
Parties
Vendor: Plaintiff (vendor); Purchaser: Defendant (purchaser)
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 December 2016
Case Number
DCCJ81/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract (sale of Property) / Judgment (trial)
Outcome
Judgment for the Plaintiff
Legal Topics
Contractual Estoppel, Receipt Clause, Vendor's Lien, S.18(1) Conveyancing and Property Ordinance, Payment of Purchase Price, Mortgage
Source Language
EN
Contract Property Equity Conveyancing Contractual Estoppel Receipt Clause Vendor's Lien S.18(1) Conveyancing and Property Ordinance +2 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff (vendor)

Vendor

Defendant (purchaser)

Purchaser

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract (sale of Property) / Judgment (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the purchase price had been paid in full by the Defendant
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff is estopped from claiming the unpaid balance by the Receipt Clauses or by contractual estoppel
  3. 3 Whether s.18(1) of the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance operates as a statutory discharge of the Defendant's obligation

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the Defendant failed to prove payment of $750,000 to the Plaintiff; only $67,000 was proven as part payment. There was no factual agreement between the parties to treat payment as made (no mutual adoption of the Receipt Clauses) and the Defendant made part payments after the Assignment, so contractual estoppel and s.18(1) do not bar the Plaintiff's claim. Judgment for Plaintiff for the unpaid balance of $683,000 with interest and costs was entered.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Plaintiff

Orders

  • Judgment for the Plaintiff for the sum of HK$683,000
  • Interest at HSBC best lending rate plus 1% per annum from the date of the Assignment until judgment