CARLE, GREGOR v. MAK, CLARENCE t/a CENTURY PRIDE MOTORS CO AND ANOTHER

CARLE, GREGOR v. MAK, CLARENCE t/a CENTURY PRIDE MOTORS CO AND ANOTHER

Court held 1st defendant liable: Mark made actionable misrepresentations as to mileage (statutory misrepresentation and in contract/negligence) and breached agent duties by failing to disclose the mileage discrepancy; 2nd defendant not liable because it did not assume responsibility or provide a mileage verification service and plaintiff did not reasonably rely on the brief phone call. Damages awarded to plaintiff against 1st defendant HK$211,148.80 (HK$189,336 loss in value + HK$21,812.80 repairs) plus interest and costs.

Citation
CARLE, GREGOR v. MAK, CLARENCE t/a CENTURY PRIDE MOTORS CO AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Gregor Carle; 1st Defendant: Clarence Mak trading as Century Pride Motors Company; 2nd Defendant: B.M.W. Concessionaires (H.K.) Limited
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 May 2016
Case Number
DCCJ1808/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Misrepresentation/contract/agency / Judgment (district Court)
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiff against 1st defendant; claim against 2nd defendant dismissed.
Legal Topics
Negligent Misrepresentation, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Breach of Contract, Breach of Agent's Duty, Imputed Knowledge, Voluntary Assumption of Responsibility, Assessment of Damages
Source Language
EN
Contract Tort Agency Consumer/commercial Negligent Misrepresentation Fraudulent Misrepresentation Breach of Contract Breach of Agent's Duty +3 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gregor Carle

Plaintiff

Clarence Mak trading as Century Pride Motors Company

1st Defendant

B.M.W. Concessionaires (H.K.) Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Misrepresentation/contract/agency / Judgment (district Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mark (agent of 1st defendant) represented the vehicle mileage to the plaintiff
  2. 2 Whether the Service Centre informed Mark of a mileage discrepancy and whether Mark conveyed that to the plaintiff
  3. 3 Whether the telephone conversation between plaintiff and Service Centre amounted to a voluntary assumption of responsibility by the 2nd defendant and gave rise to liability

Ratio Decidendi

Court held 1st defendant liable: Mark made actionable misrepresentations as to mileage (statutory misrepresentation and in contract/negligence) and breached agent duties by failing to disclose the mileage discrepancy; 2nd defendant not liable because it did not assume responsibility or provide a mileage verification service and plaintiff did not reasonably rely on the brief phone call. Damages awarded to plaintiff against 1st defendant HK$211,148.80 (HK$189,336 loss in value + HK$21,812.80 repairs) plus interest and costs.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiff against 1st defendant; claim against 2nd defendant dismissed.

Orders

  • Judgment entered against 1st defendant in sum HK$211,148.80 (HK$189,336 + HK$21,812.80)
  • Interest on judgment sum at 1% above prime from date of breach (10 November 2012) to date of judgment and thereafter at judgment rate