Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Resale after breach

Legal area

Court

24 Dec 1999

GREAT CHOICE INVESTMENT LTD. v. KAM WAI CHEE

Citation

GREAT CHOICE INVESTMENT LTD. v. KAM WAI CHEE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA13015/1998

The plaintiff was entitled to damages measured by the contractual balance shortfall (contract balance less resale proceeds) plus reasonable resale expenses; the actual resale price realized on 1 October 1998 was adopted as the market measure because there was no evidence of a sham resale; legal costs that would have been incurred if the defendant had performed were disallowed; interest awarded from 10 November 1998.
8 Oct 1999

LAU SUET LING AND ANOTHER v. NG GOON LAU JOSEPH

Citation

LAU SUET LING AND ANOTHER v. NG GOON LAU JOSEPH
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA20587/1998

Court held plaintiffs acted reasonably to mitigate loss given market fluctuation and marketing efforts; therefore measure of damages is the actual resale price difference (contract price less resale proceeds) resulting in HK$415,000; claims for legal fees and agent commission were disallowed for lack of evidential receipts; interest ordered and costs of assessment ordered nisi.
25 Jun 1999

ALUCASE CO. LTD. v. KEEN LLOYD (HOLDINGS) LTD.

Citation

ALUCASE CO. LTD. v. KEEN LLOYD (HOLDINGS) LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3577/1998

Clause 14(b) is enforceable and not a penalty when read with an implied obligation on the vendor to resell in good faith within a reasonable time; damages are measured by the deficiency at the time of actual resale in the circumstances; additional mortgage interest, loss of interest income, management fees, government rates and bank guarantee charges flowing from the breach are recoverable; interest at the judgment rate awarded from the date of judgment to payment.
5 Jan 1996

EEDECK PROPERTIES LTD. v. SUEN CHI ON

Citation

EEDECK PROPERTIES LTD. v. SUEN CHI ON
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2629/1995

The vendor acted reasonably in terminating after final notice and in reselling; the resale at $7,500,000 was an arm's‑length market sale and therefore adequate; defendant liable for the contractual price difference and resale costs; mesne profits payable until possession regained 27 April 1995; the contractual post-default interest rate was declined as penal and interest awarded at judgment rate from specified dates.
29 Dec 1986

RIPPLE CORPORATION LTD v. ASHOK M. HEMANI

Citation

RIPPLE CORPORATION LTD v. ASHOK M. HEMANI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA7641/1982

The court accepted the plaintiff's valuer's methodology and fixed market values as at 1 May 1982 (Flat A $802,000; Flat C $812,000), allowed the defendant credit for the difference between those 1982 values and the actual later sale prices, applied interest at the contractual rate of 1.4% per month from the instalment due dates and judgment rates thereafter as specified, and awarded costs to the plaintiff with a Certificate for Counsel.

Hong Kong Case Law

GREAT CHOICE INVESTMENT LTD. v. KAM WAI CHEE

LAU SUET LING AND ANOTHER v. NG GOON LAU JOSEPH

ALUCASE CO. LTD. v. KEEN LLOYD (HOLDINGS) LTD.

EEDECK PROPERTIES LTD. v. SUEN CHI ON

RIPPLE CORPORATION LTD v. ASHOK M. HEMANI