EARNING CODE LTD. v. LAU KING LIN and Another

EARNING CODE LTD. v. LAU KING LIN and Another

The Modification Letter Memorial No.3750810 was a document of title within the meaning of the Crown lease and s.13 Cap.219; consequently the 7 day completion period under the Variation Agreement did not run until delivery of that document; there was no proven binding oral variation or clear and unequivocal waiver by the plaintiff; the defendants wrongfully rescinded and forfeited the deposit; specific performance was ordered.

Citation
EARNING CODE LTD. v. LAU KING LIN and Another
Parties
Plaintiff: Earning Code Limited; 1st Defendant: Lau King Lin; 2nd Defendant: Choi Lai Lai
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 July 1995
Case Number
HCA3874/1991
Procedural Posture
Sale and Purchase of Land Specific Performance / Judgment (trial)
Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff: order for specific performance; Defendants' counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Forfeiture of Deposit, Proof of Title, Variation, Waiver, Interpretation of Contract
Source Language
EN
Property Law Contract Law Equity Conveyancing Specific Performance Forfeiture of Deposit Proof of Title Variation +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 5 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Earning Code Limited

Plaintiff

Lau King Lin

1st Defendant

Choi Lai Lai

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Sale and Purchase of Land Specific Performance / Judgment (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Modification Letter Memorial No.3750810 was a document of title the purchaser was entitled to require
  2. 2 Whether time for completion under the Variation Agreement began to run before production of that document
  3. 3 Whether there was a binding oral variation fixing completion on 16 April 1991

Ratio Decidendi

The Modification Letter Memorial No.3750810 was a document of title within the meaning of the Crown lease and s.13 Cap.219; consequently the 7 day completion period under the Variation Agreement did not run until delivery of that document; there was no proven binding oral variation or clear and unequivocal waiver by the plaintiff; the defendants wrongfully rescinded and forfeited the deposit; specific performance was ordered.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Plaintiff: order for specific performance; Defendants' counterclaim dismissed

Orders

  • Order for specific performance in favour of the Plaintiff
  • Defendants' counterclaim dismissed