YEUNG SAU CHUEN SAMMY V. CHUNG CHUN TING AND ANOTHER

YEUNG SAU CHUEN SAMMY V. CHUNG CHUN TING AND ANOTHER

The vendors repudiated the contract by attempting to treat the purchaser's failure to complete on 31 December 1992 as repudiatory before the purchaser's solicitors' seven working day period to consider late-delivered title documents (delivered 29 December 1992) had expired; accordingly the vendors must repay the deposit with interest and pay the purchaser's costs of investigating title and stamp duty.

Citation
YEUNG SAU CHUEN SAMMY V. CHUNG CHUN TING AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff (purchaser): Yeung Sau Chuen Sammy; Defendant (vendor): Chung Chun Ting; Defendant (vendor): Cheung Sai Mui
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 February 1993
Case Number
HCMP4080/1992
Procedural Posture
Vendor and Purchaser Summons (miscellaneous Proceedings) / Judgment (high Court, 2 February 1993)
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiff (purchaser). Vendors liable for breach/repudiation.
Legal Topics
Requisition on Title, Forfeiture of Deposit, Repudiation of Contract, Certified True Copies of Title Documents, Stamp Duty, Costs of Investigating Title
Source Language
EN
Conveyancing Property Law Contract Law Equity Requisition on Title Forfeiture of Deposit Repudiation of Contract Certified True Copies of Title Documents +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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yeung Sau Chuen Sammy

Plaintiff (purchaser)

Chung Chun Ting

Defendant (vendor)

Cheung Sai Mui

Defendant (vendor)

Procedural Posture

Vendor and Purchaser Summons (miscellaneous Proceedings) / Judgment (high Court, 2 February 1993)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the vendors satisfactorily answered the purchaser's requisition on title
  2. 2 Whether the purchaser was entitled to seven working days to consider late-delivered title documents
  3. 3 Whether the vendors validly forfeited the purchaser's deposit on purported completion date

Ratio Decidendi

The vendors repudiated the contract by attempting to treat the purchaser's failure to complete on 31 December 1992 as repudiatory before the purchaser's solicitors' seven working day period to consider late-delivered title documents (delivered 29 December 1992) had expired; accordingly the vendors must repay the deposit with interest and pay the purchaser's costs of investigating title and stamp duty.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiff (purchaser). Vendors liable for breach/repudiation.

Orders

  • Vendors to repay purchaser's deposit of 160500 with interest
  • Vendors to pay the purchaser's costs of investigating title to be assessed if not agreed