LEE LI AND ANOTHER v. CHEUNG CHI KEUNG AND OTHERS

LEE LI AND ANOTHER v. CHEUNG CHI KEUNG AND OTHERS

The claim failed because (a) no reasonable cause of action was pleaded against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants; (b) the Plaintiffs did not prove the alleged representation was made as pleaded on 24 January 1997; (c) the Plaintiffs failed to prove reliance on the representation as they had inspected the property themselves and later received the bank valuation; and (d) in any event the Plaintiffs affirmed the agreement by unequivocal conduct and correspondence before attempting rescission; accordingly the misrepresentation claim was dismissed with costs.

Citation
LEE LI AND ANOTHER v. CHEUNG CHI KEUNG AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: LEE LI; Plaintiff: FUNG SEK HANG; 1st Defendant: CHEUNG CHI KEUNG; 2nd Defendant: YIP WING LING; 3rd Defendant: LIN KAM TAI
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 June 1999
Case Number
HCA3799/1997
Procedural Posture
Misrepresentation (contract) / Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Rescission, Reliance, Affirmation, Damages, Costs, Stamp Duty
Source Language
EN
Contract Tort Property Civil Procedure Misrepresentation Rescission Reliance Affirmation +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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LEE LI

Plaintiff

FUNG SEK HANG

Plaintiff

CHEUNG CHI KEUNG

1st Defendant

YIP WING LING

2nd Defendant

LIN KAM TAI

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Misrepresentation (contract) / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the alleged oral representation as pleaded was made by the 1st Defendant on the pleaded date
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd and 3rd Defendants can be held liable for the alleged representation
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiffs relied on the alleged representation

Ratio Decidendi

The claim failed because (a) no reasonable cause of action was pleaded against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants; (b) the Plaintiffs did not prove the alleged representation was made as pleaded on 24 January 1997; (c) the Plaintiffs failed to prove reliance on the representation as they had inspected the property themselves and later received the bank valuation; and (d) in any event the Plaintiffs affirmed the agreement by unequivocal conduct and correspondence before attempting rescission; accordingly the misrepresentation claim was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claims dismissed

Orders

  • Plaintiffs' claims dismissed with costs.