Posts Tagged ‘breach’

Failure to pay deposit by stipulated date: the seller did not waive the breach by cashing a cheque for the deposit after communicating an intention to treat the agreements as terminated

February 11, 2017

In Fast Happy Ltd v Lee Chun Pong Bruce ([2017] HKEC 121) the plaintiffs entered into provisional sale and purchase agreements (‘the agreements’) for the sale of land by the plaintiffs to the defendants. The initial deposit was to be paid in two instalments on dates specified in the agreements.

The cheque for the first instalment was not honoured when presented. The cheque for the second instalment was proffered after the date specified in the agreements. Time was of the essence for making the payments.

The sellers’ solicitors sent an email and a letter to the estate agents handling the transactions terminating the agreements on the grounds of the buyers’ breach. The plaintiffs’ bank then re-presented the cheque for the first instalment of the deposit and it was honoured.

The defendants registered the agreements at the Land Registry and the plaintiffs sought the vacation of these registrations. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs had waived the breach by presenting the cheque for the first instalment of the deposits after the defendant’s breach.

The defendant’s argument failed. The sellers were entitled to cash the deposit cheque and to forfeit the deposit without waiving the breach. This was especially the case since the sellers had by then given clear notice of their intention to treat the agreement as having come to an end.

This was a case where the estate agents were acting for both parties and not only for the sellers. Thus notice of termination given to the agents was an effective way of giving notice to the defendants.

Michael Lower

Specific performance: ready willing and able; hardship; calculating damages

June 8, 2016

In Siu Wei v Ng Ying Ying ([2016] HKEC 1162, CFI) S and P entered into a provisional sale and purchase agreement for the sale and purchase of property. S later decided that she wanted to keep the property and refused to complete. S admitted that she was in breach of contract. P now sought specific performance.

  1. Was P ready, willing and able to perform his obligations under the contract?
  2. S argued that specific performance would inflict great hardship on her and so should be refused.
  3. P sought damages in addition to specific performance. How should these be calculated?

1 Ready, willing and able?

This must be the case both at the date of the writ and at the date of the decree. Anthony To J. commented that P needed to show:

‘on a balance of probability that he was and is ready, willing and able to perform his obligations at the material times as those obligations fall due in the sense that he is not presently incapacitated from future performance and is not indisposed to do what the contract requires when the time comes. It is all a matter of evidence, a matter of credibility for the court.’ ([33])

P satisfied this test.

2 Relevance of hardship

Specific performance will not be granted if to do so would inflict great hardship on the defendant (S here). Hardship involves a balancing of the position of both parties:

‘A defendant has to show hardship in the sense of relative prejudice. He has to show that he would suffer greater prejudice if an order of specific performance is made against him than that likely to be suffered by the injured party if the order is refused.’ ([38])

This test favoured P; he really wanted to live in the flat while it was merely a commodity for S. He would be put to additional transaction costs (including a higher level of stamp duty) if he had to buy another property([44] – [46]).

Conduct was also relevant and S had not conducted her defence in good faith ([44]).

3 Calculation of damages

‘In the case of delay in conveyance of property, the normal compensation is the value of the user of the property, which will generally be taken as its rental value, for the period from the contractual time for completion to the date of actual completion’ ([48])

P was entitled to the rental value of the property for this period but reduced by the amount of mortgage interest that he would have had to pay, had completion gone ahead, but had been ‘saved’ from by the refusal of S to complete on time ([52]).

Michael Lower

Acquiescence: Is a history of non-enforcement of DMC terms relevant?

March 2, 2016

In Freder Centre (IO) v Gringo Ltd ([2016] HKEC 418, CA) the owners of units in a commercial building placed a sign with a trade name on part of the external wall of the building. This was a breach of a term of the DMC prohibiting the placing of signs anywhere on the building except in spaces assigned for that purpose (the sign was not in an assigned space). It was also a breach of the covenant implied by section 34I of the Building Management Ordinance not to convert any common part to private use without the consent of the owners’ corporation.

In its defence, the owner of the units relied on acquiescence. The terms were of such a nature that acquiescence was possible; the space could have been made an assigned space, the owners’ corporation could have consented to the private use of the common part. The question was whether there had been acquiescence. The owners’ corporation had informed the owner of the units of its objection as soon as it learned of the breach. Looking at the incident in isolation, they could not be accused of standing idly by when the breach was committed. Gringo Ltd, however, pointed to the fact that the corporation had a long history of tolerating such breaches. It was this history that it relied on as amounting to an acquiescence. The owners’ corporation said that its limited resources meant that it could not bring proceedings in respect of all of the past breaches at once; it had a policy of concentrating on recent breaches.

The owners’ corporation’s argument had succeeded at first instance but was rejected on appeal. Chu JA giving the Court’s judgment said:

‘In our view, the fact that nearly all the other owners or occupiers of basement and ground floor units have for many years committed similar breaches, and the applicant has never taken any enforcement action or proceedings against them suggests that the breaches are prevalent and have over the years been tolerated by the applicant. This is directly relevant and germane to whether there is assent or lying by on the part of the applicant and whether it is unjust to grant the injunctive relief against the respondents.’ ([28]).

There had been acquiescence and  it would be inequitable to grant the injunction sought.

Michael Lower