MAXY LTD. v. COIN ORGANIZE LTD. and Others

MAXY LTD. v. COIN ORGANIZE LTD. and Others

On the balance of probabilities the Court found Mr Lee was agent of the Plaintiff (not the Defendants) and that no representation as to redevelopment was made to Mr Lee by the Defendants; accordingly the Plaintiff's misrepresentation claim failed and the Defendants succeeded on their counterclaim, with damages...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
MAXY LTD. v. COIN ORGANIZE LTD. and Others
Parties
Plaintiff: MAXY LIMITED; 1st Defendant: COIN ORGANIZE LIMITED; Defendants Personal Representatives: LI KWOK HOI and LEE LAN FONG (personal representatives of Chan Ngor, deceased); 2nd Defendant: LI KWOK HOI; 2nd Defendant: WONG KWAN; 2nd Defendant: TAM SIU LUN
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 February 1998
Case Number
HCA1457/1992
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract/misrepresentation/property / Judgment (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed; judgment for Defendants on counterclaim for damages of HK$7.6m; costs to Defendants (order nisi)
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Agency, Rescission, Damages, Exclusion Clause, Forfeiture of Deposit
Source Language
en
Contract Tort Property Agency Commercial Law Misrepresentation Rescission Damages +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MAXY LIMITED

Plaintiff

COIN ORGANIZE LIMITED

1st Defendant

LI KWOK HOI and LEE LAN FONG (personal representatives of Chan Ngor, deceased)

Defendants Personal Representatives

LI KWOK HOI

2nd Defendant

WONG KWAN

2nd Defendant

TAM SIU LUN

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract/misrepresentation/property / Judgment (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Lee was agent of the Defendants or of the Plaintiff
  2. 2 Whether representations were made by the Defendants about redevelopment of the properties
  3. 3 Whether Plaintiff relied on any misrepresentation and was entitled to rescind and recover the deposit

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the Court found Mr Lee was agent of the Plaintiff (not the Defendants) and that no representation as to redevelopment was made to Mr Lee by the Defendants; accordingly the Plaintiff's misrepresentation claim failed and the Defendants succeeded on their counterclaim, with damages assessed as the difference between contract price (HK$12.6m) and market value (HK$5.0m) = HK$7.6m.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed; judgment for Defendants on counterclaim for damages of HK$7.6m; costs to Defendants (order nisi)

Orders

  • Plaintiff's claim dismissed
  • Judgment for Defendants on their counterclaim for damages of 7600000 HKD