LEE ZOЁ v. HUI PAK FONG

LEE ZOЁ v. HUI PAK FONG

The vendor failed to give vacant possession by the contractual deadline and the items remaining were not de minimis; the vendor was late in tendering keys; the prevention principle did not apply because the plaintiff's prior conduct did not breach obligations or causally prevent the vendor's performance; therefore the plaintiff validly rescinded the agreement and is entitled to return of deposits and the cheques and an assessment of damages.

Citation
LEE ZOЁ v. HUI PAK FONG
Parties
Purchaser: LEE ZO
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 February 2010
Case Number
HCMP157/2009
Procedural Posture
Conveyancing / Sale and Purchase of Residential Property / Judgment (hcmp 157/2009, Court of First Instance)
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiff; agreement rescinded; declarations and consequential relief granted
Legal Topics
Vacant Possession, Rescission for Breach, Completion, Time of the Essence, Prevention Principle, De Minimis
Source Language
EN
Property Law Contract Law Conveyancing Vacant Possession Rescission for Breach Completion Time of the Essence Prevention Principle +1 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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LEE ZO

Purchaser

Procedural Posture

Conveyancing / Sale and Purchase of Residential Property / Judgment (hcmp 157/2009, Court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 State of the property at the completion deadline (5:00 p.m. 16 January 2009)
  2. 2 Whether keys were delivered by the deadline
  3. 3 Whether vacant possession was given or any failure was de minimis

Ratio Decidendi

The vendor failed to give vacant possession by the contractual deadline and the items remaining were not de minimis; the vendor was late in tendering keys; the prevention principle did not apply because the plaintiff's prior conduct did not breach obligations or causally prevent the vendor's performance; therefore the plaintiff validly rescinded the agreement and is entitled to return of deposits and the cheques and an assessment of damages.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiff; agreement rescinded; declarations and consequential relief granted

Orders

  • Declaration that plaintiff was entitled to rescind the Agreement and that the Agreement was rescinded on 16 January 2009
  • Declaration that the Assignment dated 16 January 2009 is null and void