Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Agreement to negotiate

Legal area

Court

14 Aug 2009

LAM LAI YI v. HO WING SZE AND ANOTHER

Citation

LAM LAI YI v. HO WING SZE AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2221/2006

The trial judge correctly found no binding agreement to sell the plaintiff's shares because the parties only agreed to negotiate the price with a possible accountant valuation as a reference; plaintiff failed to prove a conclusive contractual mechanism; accordingly the application for leave to appeal had no realistic prospect of success and was dismissed with costs.
27 May 2009

LAM LAI YI v. HO WING SZE AND ANOTHER

Citation

LAM LAI YI v. HO WING SZE AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2221/2006

The court found the parties only reached an agreement to negotiate; the accountant's valuation was a reference point rather than a binding determinative price, therefore no concluded contract for sale of the plaintiff's shares existed and defendants were not in breach.
21 Sept 2006

MODERN MARKET MANAGEMENT LTD v. MA WAI PIU AND OTHERS

Citation

MODERN MARKET MANAGEMENT LTD v. MA WAI PIU AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1444/2006

Summary judgment was refused because the defendants raised credible, non‑frivolous factual and legal disputes—notably whether a binding agreement was concluded at the 21 Feb 2006 meeting and whether D2 signed under undue influence—that could not be resolved without a full trial; defendants were given unconditional leave to defend.
21 Sept 2006

MODERN MARKET MANAGEMENT LTD v. MA WAI PIU AND OTHERS

Citation

MODERN MARKET MANAGEMENT LTD v. MA WAI PIU AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1441/2006

Summary judgment was dismissed because defendants demonstrated credible factual and legal disputes — principally whether a binding agreement was made at the 21 February 2006 meeting and whether D2 signed under undue influence — issues requiring oral evidence and full trial; accordingly defendants were granted unconditional leave to defend and plaintiff's Order 14 application was refused.
21 Sept 2006

MODERN MARKET MANAGEMENT LTD v. MA WAI PIU AND OTHERS

Citation

MODERN MARKET MANAGEMENT LTD v. MA WAI PIU AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1442/2006

The defendant allegations that a binding agreement was reached were credible and raised factual and mixed questions of law and fact (existence and terms of the alleged agreement; intention to create legal relations; D2's undue influence claim) that require a full trial; therefore summary judgment was inappropriate and unconditional leave to defend was granted.
21 Sept 2006

MODERN MARKET MANAGEMENT LTD v. MA WAI PIU AND OTHERS

Citation

MODERN MARKET MANAGEMENT LTD v. MA WAI PIU AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1446/2006

Defendants demonstrated credible triable issues of fact and law (existence and terms of an alleged binding agreement reached at the 21 February meeting and undue influence in D2's case) such that the matters require full trial and oral evidence; summary judgment must be dismissed and defendants given unconditional leave to defend.
21 Sept 2006

MODERN MARKET MANAGEMENT LTD v. MA WAI PIU AND OTHERS

Citation

MODERN MARKET MANAGEMENT LTD v. MA WAI PIU AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1443/2006

The court found the defendants' account of a binding agreement at the 21 February 2006 meeting to be credible on the face of the material and that factual and mixed issues of law and fact (existence and terms of any agreement, intention to create legal relations, and undue influence in D2) required a full trial; accordingly summary judgment was inappropriate and the plaintiff's application was dismissed with unconditional leave to defend.
25 Feb 2005

HYUNDAI ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. VIGOUR LTD

Citation

HYUNDAI ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. VIGOUR LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV128/2004

The March 28 2003 agreement was in important respects uncertain and unenforceable because it amounted to an agreement to negotiate/agree and to mediate without sufficiently precise, objective procedures or identified decision-makers; accordingly it could not validly bar recourse to courts or arbitration, and declarations that the defendant repudiated the agreement and that the plaintiff was thereby entitled to pursue arbitration could not stand.
17 Apr 2001

MILIKING INTERNATIONAL LTD. v. SUPER KEEN INVESTMENTS LTD.

Citation

MILIKING INTERNATIONAL LTD. v. SUPER KEEN INVESTMENTS LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA15825/1999

There was no enforceable agreement to use best endeavours nor any sufficiently certain agreement to negotiate; the alleged arrangement was at most an agreement to negotiate later and therefore void for uncertainty; appeal dismissed and Master Jones's Order 14 judgment confirmed.