Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Tender of payment

Legal area

Court

23 Jul 2007

CITADINES ASHLEY TST ( Hong Kong ) LTD v. QUENCHERS LTD

Citation

CITADINES ASHLEY TST ( Hong Kong ) LTD v. QUENCHERS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2704/2006

The court held that the disputed question (whether failure to pay rent for 1–11 September 2006 defeated the tenant's option to renew) was unsuitable for determination under Order 14A because resolution would not finally dispose of the action, factual and equitable issues (including a valid tender defence and potential relief against forfeiture) required full trial consideration, and the point should therefore be left to trial.
10 Dec 2001

KENSLAND REALTY LTD. v. WHALE VIEW INVESTMENT LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation

KENSLAND REALTY LTD. v. WHALE VIEW INVESTMENT LTD. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV10/2001

A term is implied that the vendor must give split payment information within a reasonable time before completion to enable the purchaser, having regard to dealings with its bankers and solicitors, to arrange split payment; the vendor's failure to give such information in time is a breach; where that breach causes late tender the vendor cannot rely on a time‑is‑of‑the‑essence clause to treat late tender as repudiatory and forfeit the deposit; tender made as soon as reasonably possible after late information must be accepted and refusal constitutes repudiatory breach by the vendor.
31 Oct 1997

PACIFIC SOUTH (ASIA) HOLDINGS LTD v. MILLION UNITY INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

PACIFIC SOUTH (ASIA) HOLDINGS LTD v. MILLION UNITY INTERNATIONAL LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV83/1997

Majority held that vendor and its solicitors, by failing to particularise or correct the purchaser's solicitors' clear misapprehension that the objection was prematurity rather than quality, were estopped from relying on the quality objection; vendor's rescission was therefore impermissible and the judge's order for specific performance was upheld.
9 Apr 1997

MILLION UNITY INTERNATIONAL LTD v. PACIFIC SOUTH (ASIA) HOLDINGS LTD.

Citation

MILLION UNITY INTERNATIONAL LTD v. PACIFIC SOUTH (ASIA) HOLDINGS LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP4457/1996

Defendant could not validly rescind because it failed to make a specific contemporaneous objection to the quality of the tender; it retained the cheque while approving and executing the formal agreement without raising the issue in terms that would have allowed the plaintiff to remedy it; therefore the tender was treated as valid and rescission was not available.
3 Aug 1988

LI CHING CHOI v. TACT STRONG INDUSTRNAL LIMITED

Citation

LI CHING CHOI v. TACT STRONG INDUSTRNAL LIMITED
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3329/1987

The court found on the affidavits that the solicitors had tendered the deposit and the calculated net balance to the plaintiff on the completion date, the plaintiff refused the tender to evade the agreement, and there was no bona fide factual defence; therefore the Master rightly granted specific performance under Order 86 and the appeal was dismissed.
27 Aug 1986

CHENG YIP WAH t/a HONG PING COMPANY v. MARVIN LEBOWITZ t/a LE BOW CREATIONS

Citation

CHENG YIP WAH t/a HONG PING COMPANY v. MARVIN LEBOWITZ t/a LE BOW CREATIONS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3638/1985

The court found the parties had waived and varied the delivery/payment time to 4:00 p.m. on 21/5/1985, plaintiff validly tendered payment then, defendant was unable to deliver which amounted to a fundamental breach discharging plaintiff; accordingly plaintiff was entitled to damages equal to the market replacement shortfall and to a refund of the deposit; defendant's counterclaim failed.
16 Jan 1986

MATHILDE LORRAINE VELLA v. MESSRS. ANDERSON, LIU & CHOO

Citation

MATHILDE LORRAINE VELLA v. MESSRS. ANDERSON, LIU & CHOO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA13723/1983

The Court found dismissal unjustified because the alleged statements either were not proved or caused no prejudice to the firm; the effective termination date was 19 May 1983; plaintiff entitled to damages equivalent to two months' salary, arrears of salary for specified periods, and interest as ordered; the defendant's cheque was a valid tender but its conditional full‑and‑final settlement demand prevented acceptance as discharge.
29 Sept 1982

CHU PAK SANG v. LAW YIN FOON AND OTHERS

Citation

CHU PAK SANG v. LAW YIN FOON AND OTHERS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPA6/1981

The consent order unambiguously required payment to the applicant; the applicant, although not the registered owner, was entitled to receive rent under the extended statutory definition of 'landlord' and under the consent order; cashier's orders payable to the registered owner did not constitute payment to the applicant and were therefore not compliance with the order; payment had not been made to the applicant and ejectment was justified; monies paid into court were to be released to the applicant.