DR HENRIETTA MAN HING IP v. CROCUS PROPERTY INC

DR HENRIETTA MAN HING IP v. CROCUS PROPERTY INC

Although the parties intended the document to be binding, the contract was unenforceable because essential terms were left unresolved: the parties contemplated but did not agree the terms of a Sub-Deed of Mutual Covenant essential to define rights between co-owners, and the method for calculating gross area (and thus price) was insufficiently defined; accordingly specific performance was refused and registration vacated.

Citation
DR HENRIETTA MAN HING IP v. CROCUS PROPERTY INC
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Dr. Franklin Li; 2nd Plaintiff: Ariella Estates Limited; 1st Plaintiff: Dr. Henrietta Man Hing Ip; 2nd Plaintiff: Madam Mok Wong Fung Yee; 3rd Plaintiff: Dearmost Estates Limited; 4th Plaintiff: Cheuk Fai & Company Limited; Defendant: Crocus Property Inc.
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 October 1981
Case Number
HCA4910/1980
Procedural Posture
Contract for Sale and Purchase Specific Performance / High Court Judgment (5 October 1981)
Outcome
Claim for specific performance dismissed; registration of Confirmation of Instruction in the Land Office vacated; defendant's counterclaim for damages dismissed; costs awarded as to the claim and counterclaim as detailed.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Agreement to Agree, Certainty and Uncertainty in Contract Terms, Deed of Mutual Covenant, Calculation of Gross Area, Part Performance, Enforceability of Written Memorandum
Source Language
EN
Contract Law Property Law Equity Specific Performance Agreement to Agree Certainty and Uncertainty in Contract Terms Deed of Mutual Covenant Calculation of Gross Area +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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr. Franklin Li

1st Plaintiff

Ariella Estates Limited

2nd Plaintiff

Dr. Henrietta Man Hing Ip

1st Plaintiff

Madam Mok Wong Fung Yee

2nd Plaintiff

Dearmost Estates Limited

3rd Plaintiff

Cheuk Fai & Company Limited

4th Plaintiff

Crocus Property Inc.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contract for Sale and Purchase Specific Performance / High Court Judgment (5 October 1981)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the "Confirmation of Instruction" constituted a binding contract
  2. 2 Whether essential terms (notably a Sub-Deed of Mutual Covenant) were agreed
  3. 3 Whether the method for calculating gross area (and thus price) was sufficiently certain

Ratio Decidendi

Although the parties intended the document to be binding, the contract was unenforceable because essential terms were left unresolved: the parties contemplated but did not agree the terms of a Sub-Deed of Mutual Covenant essential to define rights between co-owners, and the method for calculating gross area (and thus price) was insufficiently defined; accordingly specific performance was refused and registration vacated.

Court Disposition

Claim for specific performance dismissed; registration of Confirmation of Instruction in the Land Office vacated; defendant's counterclaim for damages dismissed; costs awarded as to the claim and counterclaim as detailed.

Orders

  • Registration of the Confirmation of Instruction in the Land Office is vacated
  • Claim for specific performance dismissed