Read the full judgment text of HCA013906A/1998 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 15 June 2001 before Hon Burrell J.
Contract law — Construction and effect of condition precedent clauses — Clause 17 in a sub-contract required proof of financial capacity and sub-contractor agreements within 10 days — Non-compliance does not automatically void the contract but renders it voidable at the option of LSY — Time for compliance can be extended and made of the essence again — CT failed to provide proof of a $20 million overdraft facility and full sub-contractor agreements despite extensions and formal notice — LSY validly terminated the contract for breach of clause 17 — Allegations of poor performance unnecessary to decide given clause 17 breach — Substantial works performed by CT but no payment had been made at termination — Costs of liability litigation ordered to be paid by defendants.
Legal issues: Legal effect of clause 17 · Compliance with overdraft facility requirement under clause 17(i) · Compliance with sub-contractors list and written undertakings under clause 17(ii) · Whether poor performance justified contract termination
Outcome: LSY was entitled to terminate the contract for CT’s breach of clause 17; LSY's repudiation was not wrongful.
Cited by 2 cases