QIN TIAN v. 譚震

QIN TIAN v. 譚震

The vendor failed to satisfactorily answer the identity requisition by the completion date (30 May 2014); CPO ss22-23 do not extend to the mainland certificates relied on as mere certificates of fact or unauthenticated copies; the unanswered discrepancies (different ID numbers, inconsistent dates of birth, forged notarial certificates and inadequate documentary proof) amounted to a repudiatory breach which the plaintiff validly accepted; judgment for the plaintiff for return of deposit and loss of bargain, counterclaim dismissed.

Citation
QIN TIAN v. 譚震
Parties
Purchaser: Plaintiff; Vendor: Defendant
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 July 2016
Case Number
DCCJ3712/2014
Procedural Posture
Conveyancing / Sale of Residential Property; Contract Dispute / Judgment (trial)
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiff; defendant liable for repudiatory breach; defendant's counterclaim dismissed; plaintiff awarded return of deposit and loss of bargain and costs
Legal Topics
Identity Requisition, Good Title, Repudiatory Breach, Damages, Statutory Presumptions (cpo S22 23)
Source Language
EN
Conveyancing Contract Law Property Law Evidence Law Identity Requisition Good Title Repudiatory Breach Damages +1 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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Purchaser

Defendant

Vendor

Procedural Posture

Conveyancing / Sale of Residential Property; Contract Dispute / Judgment (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was completion extended beyond 30 May 2014?
  2. 2 Do sections 22 and 23 of the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance apply to the mainland certificates?
  3. 3 By the extended completion date had the vendor satisfactorily answered the requisition on identity?

Ratio Decidendi

The vendor failed to satisfactorily answer the identity requisition by the completion date (30 May 2014); CPO ss22-23 do not extend to the mainland certificates relied on as mere certificates of fact or unauthenticated copies; the unanswered discrepancies (different ID numbers, inconsistent dates of birth, forged notarial certificates and inadequate documentary proof) amounted to a repudiatory breach which the plaintiff validly accepted; judgment for the plaintiff for return of deposit and loss of bargain, counterclaim dismissed.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiff; defendant liable for repudiatory breach; defendant's counterclaim dismissed; plaintiff awarded return of deposit and loss of bargain and costs

Orders

  • Defendant to return deposit to plaintiff in the sum of 521000 HKD
  • Defendant to pay plaintiff loss of bargain in the sum of 340000 HKD