LAI KE BIN v. CAPITAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT LTD

LAI KE BIN v. CAPITAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT LTD

Vendor's replies did not satisfactorily answer the requisition by the completion date because they failed to address the purchaser's legitimate point and caused a misapprehension that required clarification; therefore purchaser was not in breach, vendor's termination on 15 January 2008 was invalid; although the court has jurisdiction under s12 CPO to order specific performance, purchaser failed to prove current readiness and ability to complete, so specific performance is refused and alternative relief awarded.

Citation
LAI KE BIN v. CAPITAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT LTD
Parties
Purchaser / Plaintiff: Lai Ke Bin; Vendor / Defendant: Capital Project Development Ltd
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 November 2008
Case Number
HCMP791/2008
Procedural Posture
Vendor and Purchaser Summons (originating Summons) Under Section 12 CPO / Hearing and Judgment at First Instance (deputy High Court Judge)
Outcome
Application granted in part: declarations in favour of purchaser; specific performance refused; deposit to be returned and damages awarded in lieu; equitable lien declared; costs awarded to purchaser (order nisi)
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Requisitions as to Title, Termination and Forfeiture of Deposit, Waiver and Election, Damages in Lieu of Specific Performance, Equitable Lien, Readiness to Complete
Source Language
EN
Property Law Contract Law Equity Conveyancing Specific Performance Requisitions as to Title Termination and Forfeiture of Deposit Waiver and Election +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lai Ke Bin

Purchaser / Plaintiff

Capital Project Development Ltd

Vendor / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Vendor and Purchaser Summons (originating Summons) Under Section 12 CPO / Hearing and Judgment at First Instance (deputy High Court Judge)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the vendor answered the requisition satisfactorily by the contractual completion date
  2. 2 Whether the vendor waived its right to terminate by electing to affirm the contract
  3. 3 Whether the purchaser was entitled to a reasonable extension of time to complete

Ratio Decidendi

Vendor's replies did not satisfactorily answer the requisition by the completion date because they failed to address the purchaser's legitimate point and caused a misapprehension that required clarification; therefore purchaser was not in breach, vendor's termination on 15 January 2008 was invalid; although the court has jurisdiction under s12 CPO to order specific performance, purchaser failed to prove current readiness and ability to complete, so specific performance is refused and alternative relief awarded.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part: declarations in favour of purchaser; specific performance refused; deposit to be returned and damages awarded in lieu; equitable lien declared; costs awarded to purchaser (order nisi)

Orders

  • Declaration that the Vendor failed to answer the requisition satisfactorily
  • Declaration that the Vendor's termination of the agreement on 15 January 2008 was invalid