31 Oct 2024
The appeal is dismissed: the plaintiff acted reasonably in demanding proof of funds from the proposed purchaser and there is no evidence of any promise or representation giving rise to promissory estoppel; accordingly the plaintiff was entitled to enforce the mortgage and obtain vacant possession and to costs.
27 Oct 2004
The mortgagee did not breach its duty to obtain the best price reasonably obtainable: sale by tender was a reasonable and properly advertised and conducted method in the depressed market conditions and the defendants failed to discharge the burden of proof that the sale was at an avoidable undervalue; accordingly judgment entered for the plaintiff and against the 2nd and 3rd defendants for the shortfall.
3 Oct 1996
The court held that the tender process created unilateral contractual obligations to accept the highest conforming bids; the highest conforming bids were those made by the 3rd plaintiff's nominee companies; certified cheques payable to solicitors did not satisfy the explicit cashier's‑order requirement; therefore the defendants breached their contractual obligation and the award of damages to Mr. Tsang (3rd plaintiff) was upheld but the judgment was varied to award damages to Mr. Tsang alone.