SUN WEALTHY LTD v. GALANT MOTORS LTD

SUN WEALTHY LTD v. GALANT MOTORS LTD

Requisition No.3 was within Clause 11; the defendant had evidence that it reasonably believed it could not procure a certified copy in time and therefore was entitled to give five working days notice under Clause 11; the purchaser did not withdraw the requisition within the notice period and the Agreement was rescinded. Summary judgment for the plaintiff was refused because there was evidence supporting the vendor's reasonable belief of inability.

Citation
SUN WEALTHY LTD v. GALANT MOTORS LTD
Parties
Purchaser: Plaintiff; Vendor: Defendant
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 May 2005
Case Number
HCA2475/2004
Procedural Posture
Contract Sale of Land; Specific Performance and Annulment / Hearing on Summons Under Order 86 (summary Judgment) and Order 14 a (points of Law); Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Plaintiff's Order 86 summons for summary judgment dismissed; defendant's Order 14A determinations granted; Agreement rescinded under Clause 11; costs to defendant
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Rescission/annulment, Title Requisitions, Conveyancing, Reasonable Grounds for Rescission
Source Language
EN
Contract Property Equity Specific Performance Rescission/annulment Title Requisitions Conveyancing Reasonable Grounds for Rescission

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Purchaser

Defendant

Vendor

Procedural Posture

Contract Sale of Land; Specific Performance and Annulment / Hearing on Summons Under Order 86 (summary Judgment) and Order 14 a (points of Law); Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Requisition No.3 falls within Clause 11
  2. 2 Whether the vendor was entitled to exercise Clause 11 by giving five working days notice to annul
  3. 3 Whether the Agreement was annulled because the requisition was not withdrawn within the notice period

Ratio Decidendi

Requisition No.3 was within Clause 11; the defendant had evidence that it reasonably believed it could not procure a certified copy in time and therefore was entitled to give five working days notice under Clause 11; the purchaser did not withdraw the requisition within the notice period and the Agreement was rescinded. Summary judgment for the plaintiff was refused because there was evidence supporting the vendor's reasonable belief of inability.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's Order 86 summons for summary judgment dismissed; defendant's Order 14A determinations granted; Agreement rescinded under Clause 11; costs to defendant

Orders

  • Dismiss Order 86 summons (summary judgment refused)
  • Determine defendant was entitled to exercise Clause 11 and give five working days notice to annul