Grandyield Knitters Ltd. v. M. B. E. Engineering Ltd.

Grandyield Knitters Ltd. v. M. B. E. Engineering Ltd.

The purchaser was not induced by any misrepresentation because she did not rely on assurances and left title matters to solicitors; the defendant breached the implied term by being unable to convey title to parking space No.69A; the contractual provision specifying retention of the deposit was a genuine pre-estimate of loss and not a penalty; defences of estoppel, mistake and reliance on s7(2) of the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance failed; accordingly judgment for the plaintiff for $90,000 plus interest and costs followed.

Citation
Grandyield Knitters Ltd. v. M. B. E. Engineering Ltd.
Parties
Plaintiff: Grandyield Knitters Limited; Defendant: M. B. E. Engineering Limited
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 October 2001
Case Number
DCCJ11136/2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Action Sale and Purchase of Parking Spaces (contract and Property) / Judgment on Liability and Damages (district Court)
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiff
Legal Topics
Implied Term to Convey Title, Liquidated Damages Vs Penalty, Estoppel, Mistake, Construction of Statutory Condition
Source Language
EN
Contract Property Conveyancing Misrepresentation Remedies Implied Term to Convey Title Liquidated Damages Vs Penalty Estoppel +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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grandyield Knitters Limited

Plaintiff

M. B. E. Engineering Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action Sale and Purchase of Parking Spaces (contract and Property) / Judgment on Liability and Damages (district Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff was induced into the agreement by misrepresentation
  2. 2 Whether the defendant breached the implied term to convey good title in respect of parking space No.69A
  3. 3 Whether the contractual sum constituted liquidated damages or an unenforceable penalty

Ratio Decidendi

The purchaser was not induced by any misrepresentation because she did not rely on assurances and left title matters to solicitors; the defendant breached the implied term by being unable to convey title to parking space No.69A; the contractual provision specifying retention of the deposit was a genuine pre-estimate of loss and not a penalty; defences of estoppel, mistake and reliance on s7(2) of the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance failed; accordingly judgment for the plaintiff for $90,000 plus interest and costs followed.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiff

Orders

  • Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $90,000 and interest as claimed
  • Plaintiff entitled to costs; order nisi in favour of the plaintiff with certificate for counsel; costs to be taxed if not agreed