Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Misdescription

Legal area

Court

5 Mar 2004

CASHEW HOLDINGS LTD v. PACIFIC SUCCESS ENTERPRISE LTD

Citation

CASHEW HOLDINGS LTD v. PACIFIC SUCCESS ENTERPRISE LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA10296/2000

Court found as a fact the encroached area was part of the property sold; Defendant reinstatement left the vendor unable to give good title or vacant possession in respect of the encroached area and failed to show reinstatement was properly executed before completion; reinstatement materially and substantially affected the use and marketability of the property (room >50% reduction and loss of window) so substantial performance was not tendered; Plaintiff validly rescinded and was entitled to return of deposit with interest and additional relief ordered.
12 Sept 2000

ARTECH PRINTING LTD. v. YEE FAT PRINTING EQUIPMENT LTD.

Citation

ARTECH PRINTING LTD. v. YEE FAT PRINTING EQUIPMENT LTD.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV92/2000

The Court held the contract was a sale by description and the representation that the machine was 1989 was a material misdescription because a 1985 machine was not 'approximately 1989'; on proper construction condition (7) did not permit such a substantial variance nor validly exclude liability; the exclusion would be unreasonable under s12(3) if read to allow arbitrary ages; appeal dismissed.
17 Jun 2000

CHAN YIU KIT AND ANOTHER v. HOMEAST DEVELOPMENT LTD.

Citation

CHAN YIU KIT AND ANOTHER v. HOMEAST DEVELOPMENT LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA12520/1998

The written mistake describing the lot was corrected to Lot No. 600A to reflect the parties' common intention; Clause 18's timelines were estimates but required commencement and completion within a reasonable time; no condition precedent of obtaining a building licence was proved or written into the agreement; by failing to obtain the licence and commence works within reasonable time the vendor put performance beyond its means and breached the contract; accordingly the purchasers validly rescinded and were entitled to return of deposit and to liquidated damages and stamp duty under the provis…
28 Jan 2000

YEE FAT PRINTING EQUIPMENT LTD. v. ARTECH PRINTING LTD.

Citation

YEE FAT PRINTING EQUIPMENT LTD. v. ARTECH PRINTING LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA8590/1997

The contract was a sale by description; the stated year of manufacture (1989) formed part of that description and was materially misdescribed (actual year 1985); Artech was dealing as a consumer under the Control of Exceptions Ordinance so condition 7 could not be relied on to exclude liability; therefore Yee Fat was in breach, Artech was entitled to rescind and recover the deposit with interest.
7 Jun 1985

ELDO TRADING COMPANY LIMITED v. THOROGOOD ESTATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER

Citation

ELDO TRADING COMPANY LIMITED v. THOROGOOD ESTATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA11995/1983

The written sale agreements were complied with as executed; no actionable misrepresentation or material breach entitled the plaintiff to rescind; the court found a collateral promise to allow management/naming but that promise was collateral, not a contractual condition preventing the vendor from serving a valid notice to complete; plaintiff's pleadings did not permit an estoppel defence; consequently defendants' rescission and counterclaim succeeded and judgment was entered for the 1st defendant for HK$137,674,084.

Hong Kong Case Law

CASHEW HOLDINGS LTD v. PACIFIC SUCCESS ENTERPRISE LTD

ARTECH PRINTING LTD. v. YEE FAT PRINTING EQUIPMENT LTD.

CHAN YIU KIT AND ANOTHER v. HOMEAST DEVELOPMENT LTD.

YEE FAT PRINTING EQUIPMENT LTD. v. ARTECH PRINTING LTD.

ELDO TRADING COMPANY LIMITED v. THOROGOOD ESTATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER