Phoneyork Co Ltd v. Chesson International (Holdings) Ltd
Read the full judgment text of HCA 2192/2007 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 28 May 2012.
1. This is an unusual case. It is a dispute concerning the sale and purchase of an industrial building in Kwun Tong, Kowloon. The action started off as a claim for dishonoured cheque. The plaintiff had previously applied for summary judgment for the amount represented by the dishonoured cheque, but the defendant was granted unconditional leave to defend due to the unusual features of the dispute. Pursuant to an Order made by Master Ho dated 24 August 2009, the third party also participated in th
Cited by 2 cases · Cites 7 cases
|
HCA 2192/2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO 2192 OF 2007 ____________
____________
_______________ J U D G M E N T _______________ 1.This is an unusual case. It is a dispute concerning the sale and purchase of an industrial building in Kwun Tong, Kowloon. The action started off as a claim for dishonoured cheque. The plaintiff had previously applied for summary judgment for the amount represented by the dishonoured cheque, but the defendant was granted unconditional leave to defend due to the unusual features of the dispute. Pursuant to an Order made by Master Ho dated 24 August 2009, the third party also participated in this trial. A. THE PROTAGONIST 2.The plaintiff, a property holding company, was at all material times the registered owner of the industrial building situated at No 82 Hung To Road, Kwun Tong, Kowloon (“the Building”). The directors of the plaintiff at the time were Ms Lau Wai Kuen, Goretti (“Ms Lau”), her father (who had unfortunately passed away before the trial) and her brother. Ms Lau’s late father was the person who made decision at the time, but Ms Lau was involved in this matter as she (together with a Ms Chung referred to below) assisted her late father in this matter. Apart from being a director of the plaintiff, Ms Lau was involved in the family textile business and also took up various public duties concerning textile and environmental protection. 3.The defendant was at all material times a company with business and investment in Hong Kong and in various parts of Mainland China. It ran various factories which manufactured electrical appliances. The key person behind the defendant was a Mr Kai Yau Ming (“Mr Kai”). 4.Apart from being a businessman, Mr Kai has a keen interest in Chinese culture including Chinese calligraphy and painting. At the material time, Mr Kai held the chairmanship of numerous Chinese arts and calligraphy bodies. He was also the Vice-Director of the Culture, History and Learning Sub-Committee of the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (“CPPCC”), and Fellow of the Calligraphy and Painting Faculty of the Chinese Culture and History Research Institute. In 2007, Mr Kai published a collection of Chinese calligraphy containing selected Chinese calligraphy works of his. Further, Mr Kai received various recognition of his achievement and contribution to the community of Hong Kong and Mainland China. Amongst others, he was awarded the Hong Kong SAR BBS Bauhinia Award in 2000 by the Hong Kong Government, and was appointed a member of the National Committee of the CPPCC in 2005. 5.In this action, the plaintiff placed emphasis on the fact that Mr Kai was a seasoned businessman and had experience in purchasing landed properties in Hong Kong. As I understand, the defendant and Mr Kai did not dispute such a fact highlighted by the plaintiff. In any event, on the evidence before this court, there is no doubt that Mr Kai was a very successful business with experience in acquiring landed properties in Hong Kong. In fact, the same can also be said of the plaintiff. According to the evidence of Ms Lau, the plaintiff or her father (as well as she herself) was also very experienced in the acquisition of landed properties in Hong Kong. 6.The third party was and is a well-known estate agency in Hong Kong. The staff members of the third party involved in this matter included Ms Irene Ngai (“Ms Ngai”), Mr Choi Wing Cheung, Kent (“Mr Choi”) and Mr Chang Chung Hei, Kinson (Mr Chang”). Mr Choi and Mr Chang were then respectively the Deputy Sales Director and Manager of the Industrial and Commercial Property Department of the third party. Ms Ngai, on the other hand, was the key person dealing with the plaintiff. 7.As will be dealt with below, one question concerning the third party is whether it was the estate agent of the plaintiff only, or whether it was the estate agent acting for both the plaintiff and the defendant. According to the plaintiff: (1) the third party acted for both the plaintiff and the defendant for the sale and purchase of the Building; (2) Ms Ngai acted as the plaintiff’s agent for the sale of the Building, whereas Mr Choi and Mr Chang acted as the defendant’s agent for the purchase of the Building (see paragraph 4 of the Amended Reply). B. THE PLAINTIFF’S CASE 8.As noted at the outset, the plaintiff’s claim is one for dishonoured cheque (“the Cheque”) for the amount of HK$7.9 million which was issued in the context of the sale and purchase of the Building. Putting aside its answer to the defendant’s defence (which will be dealt with below), the essential facts relied on by the plaintiff in support of its claim are relatively straightforward and can be summarized as follows. 9.Since around late 2006, the plaintiff had put up the Building for sale and various estate agents including the third party were retained. However, the intended sale had not been successful. By a written sole agency agreement in Chinese dated 5 September 2007, the plaintiff appointed the third party as the sole or exclusive agent for selling the Building for the period from 5 September to 5 October 2007. According to Ms Lau of the plaintiff, her father found Ms Ngai “very aggressive” and that was why the plaintiff agreed to appoint the third party as the sole agent. As far as the plaintiff was concerned, Ms Lau and her father only dealt with Ms Ngai of the third party. On this basis, it is the plaintiff’s case that only Ms Ngai was acting as the plaintiff’s agent, whereas Mr Choi and Mr Chang acted as agent for the defendant. 10.The plaintiff signed an undated Preliminary Sale and Purchase Agreement (“SPA”), which was the standard form agreement of the third party. The SPA stated, amongst others, that the price for the Building was HK$158 million, and that it was only valid until 5 October 2007 (ie the last date of the sole agency granted to the third party). Further, not only did clause 4 of the SPA state that the Building was to be sold subject to tenancy, the part in clause 4 concerning vacant possession was deleted and there was a schedule to the SPA setting out certain particulars of the then existing tenancies. 11.On around 2 October 2007, the SPA as signed by the defendant together with the Cheque were delivered to the plaintiff. The plaintiff took the view that the SPA was a valid and legally binding agreement whereby the plaintiff agreed to sell and the defendant agreed to purchase the Building at the price of HK$158 million. As regards the Cheque, the plaintiff took the view that it was for payment of the initial deposit for the purchase of the Building. The plaintiff acknowledged receipt of the Cheque by countersigning on the SPA, and presented the Cheque on the same date. However, the Cheque was dishonoured with “Refer to Drawer” as the reason for dishonour. On 4 October 2007, the plaintiff presented the Cheque again. However, the Cheque was dishonoured again with instructions to “Refer to Drawer, present after 8 October 2007”. The plaintiff presented the Cheque yet again on 8 October 2007. Again, the Cheque was dishonoured and the plaintiff was informed that payment was countermanded by the drawer. 12.By a letter dated 10 October 2007 from its solicitors Messrs Y T Chan & Co to the defendant, the plaintiff complained that the Cheque was dishonoured and demanded payment. After the defendant’s reply by a letter dated 15 October 2007, the plaintiff commenced this action for the sum of HK$7.9 million against the defendant. C. THE DEFENCE 13.The defendant did not in any way dispute the signing of the SPA or the issue of the Cheque. However, the defendant contended that the SPA was not legally binding and that there were misrepresentations by the third party as agent of the plaintiff. The defendant’s case can be summarized as follows. 14.At the time when the plaintiff was putting up the Building for sale, Mr Kai was looking for a place to set up an exhibition centre for promoting Chinese art and culture including Chinese calligraphy (“the Purpose”). According to the defendant, once this news went out, various estate agents approached Mr Kai or his staff with a view to introducing premises to Mr Kai. Amongst others, Mr Choi and Mr Chang of the third party approached Mr Kai’s secretary, a Ms Li Suet Yin (alias Li Yick Lam) (“Ms Li”) on 20 September 2007, representing to her that the Building was available for sale at the price of HK$160 million. 15.According to the defendant, there were site inspections and meetings during the period from 20 September 2007 to 28 September 2007 (save that Mr Kai was in Beijing during the period from 23 to 26 September 2007 and hence no real negotiation took place when he was not in Hong Kong). 16.During these inspections and meetings, Mr Kai expressed the view that the asking price of HK$158 million for the Building was too high and requested to meet the plaintiff face-to-face so that he could negotiate with the plaintiff to reduce the price. 17.As was accepted by Mr Chang in his testimony, Mr Kai gave his name card and two books on Chinese calligraphy to Mr Chang at their meeting after the first visit to the Building on 20 September 2007. Mr Kai also told Mr Chang that his purpose of buying the Building was to establish an exhibition centre for Chinese art and calligraphy. As the purpose of buying the building was a charitable or non-profit one, Mr Kai expressed a strong desire to meet the plaintiff so as to persuade the plaintiff to reduce the price. 18.Mr Choi and Mr Chang, asserted the defendant, made the following representations to the defendant in the course of the negotiations leading up to the signing of the SPA and the issue of the Cheque on 29 September 2007:
19.Of these representations (collectively the “Representations”), it is the defendant’s case that the Sincerity and Fit for Purpose Representations were made orally (see paragraphs 2(d)(ii) and 2(f) of the Defence), whereas the Vacant Possession Representation was made by conduct (see paragraph 2(g)(iii) of the Defence). 20.Apart from the signing of the SPA (ie the one already pre-signed by the plaintiff) and the issue of the Cheque at a meeting with Mr Choi and Mr Chang at Mr Kai’s office on 29 September 2007 (a Saturday), the defendant stressed that, at the same meeting on 29 September 2007 and at the request of Mr Kai, Mr Choi and Ms Li signed a document in Chinese (“志成國際(集團)有限公司關於購買鴻圖道82號安達工業大廈的情況說明”) dated 29 September 2007 (“Explanatory Memorandum”). The relevant parts of this Explanatory Memorandum read as follows:
The English translation is as follows:
21.According to the defendant, Mr Kai signed the SPA and the Cheque on behalf of the defendant in reliance on the Representations and that the Explanatory Memorandum was made so as to ensure that the Cheque would not be passed to the plaintiff until Mr Kai had a chance to meet the plaintiff face-to-face to discuss the price. On this basis, it is the defendant’s case that the SPA was signed with no intention to be legally bound (see paragraph 2(i)(iv)(2) of the Defence) and that Mr Kai reiterated to Mr Chang and Mr Choi at the meeting on 29 September 2007 that the Cheque “should not be handed over to the plaintiff” (see paragraph 2(i)(v) of the Defence). 22.Further, after having obtained the Explanatory Memorandum, Mr Kai was still concerned about the situation. Mr Kai through his secretary Ms Li asked the estate agents to return to his office on the morning of 2 October 2007 (which was the first working day after 29 September 2007) and asked Mr Choi to make an endorsement on the back of the Cheque. Mr Choi acceded to Mr Kai’s request and made the following endorsement (“Endorsement”) on the back of the Cheque:
The English translation is as follows:
23.According to the defendant, the purpose of the Endorsement was to ensure that “the Cheque would not be presented” (see paragraph 2(k) of the Defence). 24.As Mr Kai did not at the time have a chance to meet the plaintiff, the Cheque was not honoured on 2 October 2007. As Mr Kai was told that a meeting with the plaintiff could be arranged on 8 October 2007, Mr Kai informed the bank that the Cheque would be hold up until 8 October 2007. This was the reason why when the Cheque was presented again by the plaintiff on 4 October, the plaintiff was informed by the bank: “Refer to Drawer, present after 8 October 2007”. Mr Kai, however, was not happy with the presentation of the Cheque by the plaintiff before he had a chance to meet the plaintiff to discuss the price. Following a meeting on 5 October 2007 during which he was told that the sale and purchase of the Building was reported in an article published in the Hong Kong Economic Times on that day, Mr Kai was very unhappy about the situation. Mr Kai took the view that the third party released the information to the Hong Kong Economic Times so as to put pressure on the defendant to purchase the Building. Mr Kai felt that he was deceived and decided not to buy the Building. Accordingly, Mr Kai instructed his staff to countermand the Cheque. 25.Instead of buying the Building, the defendant purchased units in another building known as Wah Shing Centre on 8 October 2007 for the purpose of establishing the exhibiting centre. The exhibition centre was eventually established at the units at Wah Shing Centre. D. THE RESPONSE OF THE PLAINTIFF AND THE THIRD PARTY 26.The plaintiff asserted that it was not aware of the making of the Representations as the negotiations with the defendant were conducted through the third party. According to the plaintiff (as can be seen from the cross-examination of Ms Ngai by the plaintiff’s leading counsel), the third party never told the plaintiff the background of Mr Kai or his intention to buy the Building for the purpose of establishing an exhibition centre for displaying Chinese art and calligraphy. Further, it is the plaintiff’s case (which is not disputed by the third party) that it only became aware of the Explanatory Memorandum on around 18 October 2007 (ie after the plaintiff’s solicitors received the defendant’s letter dated 15 October 2007 on 18 October 2007). The plaintiff regarded the Explanatory Memorandum as a matter solely between the defendant and the third party. As regards the Endorsement on the back of the Cheque, the plaintiff took the stance that the conditions set out in the Endorsement did not add anything to the SPA as the plaintiff was happy to sell the Building at the price of HK$158 million. 27.Further, it is the plaintiff’s case that the third party in any event did not have authority to make any of the Representations. The plaintiff also relied on clause 18 of the SPA, which provided that the SPA “superseded all prior negotiations, representation, understanding and agreements of the parties”. 28.The third party denied the making of the Representations, and also contended that the SPA was legally binding. In other words, it was also the stance of the third party that the defendant was in breach of the SPA in that it failed to complete the purchase of the Building. 29.Although it was accepted that Mr Kai did pass to Mr Chang his business card and the two books on Chinese calligraphy on 20 September 2007 and asked the third party to pass them on to the plaintiff, the third party acknowledged that the same were not passed on to the plaintiff until 2 October 2007. However, according to Ms Ngai, she informed Ms Lau’s father of the background of Mr Kai on 20 September 2007 but was told that the plaintiff was not interested in the background of Mr Kai and that the plaintiff would not reduce the price. According to Mr Chang, the Explanatory Memorandum was only to confirm the amount of commission payable to the third party. 30.On the above basis, the third party counterclaimed against the defendant the sum of HK$2,370,000 being unpaid commission under clause 12 of the SPA. 31.At the trial, both the plaintiff and the third party placed emphasis on the fact that the defendant purchased units in Wah Shing Centre on 8 October 2007. In short, the plaintiff and the third party sought to suggest that the defendant changed its name and thus countermanded the Cheque. E. THE ISSUES 32.In view of the dispute between the parties, the first and most important key issue that calls for consideration is whether the Sincerity Representation was made by the third party on behalf of the plaintiff which induced the signing of the SPA and the issue of the Cheque by the defendant. In other words, the most important question in this action is whether or not the SPA was intended to be a legally binding agreement. If the defendant successfully established its case on the Sincerity Representation and demonstrated that the SPA as signed by Mr Kai on behalf of the defendant was not intended to be a legally binding agreement, the plaintiff’s claim on the Cheque fails and so will the third party’s claim against the defendant. 33.On the other hand, if the defendant failed to establish its case on the Sincerity Representation, that would mean that the SPA was a legally binding agreement and the Cheque was issued for payment of the initial deposit. In such a scenario, unless the defendant could successfully establish its case on the Vacant Possession Representation or the Fit for Purpose Representation, the plaintiff’s claim as well as the third party’s claim against the defendant should be upheld. G. THE WITNESSES 34.A large part of the present dispute is factual in nature. In particular, the question of whether the Representations were made is a fact-sensitive question. Accordingly, credibility and reliability of witnesses is one of the issues that calls for consideration. However, since the third party acted as the agent in the negotiations leading to the execution of the SPA and there was no direct communication or meeting between the plaintiff and the defendant prior to the signing of the SPA on 29 September 2007, the most crucial question is whether the defendant’s version of events is to be accepted or whether the court should accept the third party’s version of events. Needless to say, this court has to consider the inherent probability of the parties’ cases and also test the witnesses’ testimonies against the contemporaneous documents as well as their contemporaneous conduct. 35.Given the nature of the plaintiff’s claim and the lines of defence relied on by the defendant, the trial started with the defendant’s witnesses after Mr Fung SC’s opening. The defendant called two witnesses, namely, Mr Kai and his daughter Ms Kai Ngan Ping (“Ms Kai”). 36.At the time of the trial, Mr Kai was 73-year-old. His oral testimony was largely in line with his witness statements. There are areas in Mr Kai’s testimony that are less than clear or even not entirely consistent with his previous affirmation or witness statements. However, having considered his evidence as a whole (including the inherent probability of the defendant’s case, the contemporaneous documents and the parties’ contemporaneous conduct, which will be discussed below), I have no doubt that Mr Kai tried his very best to tell what he believed and understood to have happened at the time. The unsatisfactory areas of Mr Kai’s testimony was, in my view, due to his old age and his subjective perception of the events that he narrated. On the whole, notwithstanding there are unsatisfactory areas in Mr Kai’s testimony, I find Mr Kai an honest witness. In particular, for the reasons set out below, I have no hesitation in accepting Mr Kai’s evidence concerning the making of the Sincerity Representation by the third party. 37.Ms Kai’s testimony is very brief and peripheral to the real issues in dispute. She was not involved in the material events surrounding the execution of the SPA and the issue of the Cheque. I do not think her evidence affects the determination of this dispute one way or another. In any event and insofar as may be necessary, I also accept Ms Kai’s evidence. 38.Mr Kai’s secretary, Ms Li, had made two witness statements but did not testify at this trial. However, I do not think any adverse inference should or could be drawn against the defendant. Ms Li only assisted Mr Kai in the intended purchase of the Building. The key or material communications with the third party was covered by Mr Kai’s testimony. While different party or counsel might make a different decision in a similar circumstances, I do not think the defendant’s decision not to call Mr Li can be faulted. 39.The plaintiff called two witnesses, namely, Ms Lau and Ms Chung Yee Kam, Joy (“Ms Chung”) (who was at the time a staff of the plaintiff assisting Ms Lau’s father). 40.As noted above, neither Ms Lau nor Ms Chung dealt with Mr Kai or his secretary directly. Instead, they essentially only dealt with Ms Ngai directly, although they had met Mr Choi as well. As a result, neither of them took part in the discussions between Mr Chang and Mr Choi on the one part and Mr Kai or his secretary on the other. Hence, although reflective of the contemporaneous conduct of the plaintiff and also the plaintiff’s perception of the matter, their testimonies are not particularly material in resolving whether the Representations were made. 41.As will be further discussed below, their testimonies’ key relevance to the resolution of this dispute is only twofold. First, the third party did not show the Explanatory Memorandum to the plaintiff at the time. According to Ms Lau (which I accept), the plaintiff only became aware of the existence of the Explanatory Memorandum on around 18 October 2007 (ie after the defendant sent its letter dated 15 October 2007, which was, as the receipt chop shown, received by the plaintiff’s solicitors Messrs Y T Chan & Co on 18 October 2007). Second, if the Sincerity Representation was made by the third party as the defendant asserted (an issue which will be considered below), the plaintiff was not informed of it by the third party. Besides, notwithstanding Mr Kai’s express request to the third party, the name card and the two books on calligraphy were only passed to the plaintiff on 2 October 2007 (ie on the same occasion when the SPA and the Cheque were passed to the plaintiff). 42.Although there are areas in Ms Lau’s evidence which were not entirely satisfactory (such as her evidence in respect of her reaction to the Endorsement or the Explanatory Memorandum, and also the repeated assertion that only Ms Ngai acted for the plaintiff despite the third party, as opposed to Ms Ngai, was appointed as the plaintiff’s sole agent), I do not think Ms Lau deliberately sought to tailor her evidence to suit her case. Instead, I think Ms Lau was affected by her perception of this matter, which in turn was largely caused by what the third party had or had not informed her at the time. 43.I should add that a Mr Wong Hun Fat had also made a witness statement for the plaintiff but was not called to testify at this trial. This Mr Wong was one of the founder of Regent Chain Company Limited, which was at the time one of the plaintiff’s tenants at the Building. His witness statement dealt with matters which might have an impact on the Vacant Possession Representation. Like the case of Ms Li, I do not think any adverse inference should or could be drawn notwithstanding the plaintiff’s decision not to call Mr Wong to testify at this trial. 44.Further, I should mention another matter concerning witnesses for the sake of completeness. The plaintiff’s solicitors had issued Writs of Subpoena Duces Tecum on Ms lau Yuen-ling, Ms Lai Wai-lin and Mr Wong Wai Kwong of Hang Seng Bank Ltd on 17 March 2011 and on Ms Virgie Lee of Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong) Ltd on 11 April 2011, requiring them to attend court at this trial to give evidence on behalf of the plaintiff. By a letter dated 16 May 2011, the plaintiff’s solicitors Messrs Vincent T K Cheung, Yap & Co informed this court that the plaintiff had reconsidered the matter and took the view that it would not be necessary to call any of those witnesses. By the same letter, the plaintiff applied for directions that those witnesses be excused from attending this trial. The plaintiff’s application was granted on the same date by this court, as none of those witnesses was necessary in view of the issues in dispute. Accordingly, none of those witnesses from the two banks attended this trial. 45.The third party called three witnesses, namely, Ms Ngai, Mr Choi and Mr Chang (who left the third party at the end of 2009). For reasons dealt with below, I have serious reservation about the reliability or credibility of these three witnesses. In particular, I have grave reservation about the key aspect of the testimonies of Mr Choi and Ms Ngai. Hence, insofar as their testimonies conflicts with those of Mr Kai or Ms Lau, I prefer those of Mr Kai and Ms Lau instead of those of Ms Ngai, Mr Choi or Mr Chang. H. ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE 46.In its pleadings and also at this trial, Ms Mok SC leading Mr Lee Tung Ming for the plaintiff challenged the admissibility of the evidence relied on by the defendant to show that the Cheque was only issued to show sincerity. In support of its challenge, the plaintiff relied on a long line of authorities dealing with the application of the parol evidence rule in the context of cheque. These authorities include: Great Sincere Trading Co Ltd v Swee Hong & Co [1968] HKLR 660; S Y Chan Ltd v Choy Wai Bor [2001] 3 HKLRD 145; Lam Tai Kwan v Lo Wai Kit [2007] 1 HKLRD 367; Prosperity Lamps & Components Ltd v Rotegear Corp Ltd [2000] 2 HKC 638; Man Sun Finance (International) Corporation Ltd v Wong Kwan-man [1982] HKLR146; Hoven International Ltd v Mass Resources Development Ltd [1997] 1 HKC 38; Lin Hsien Tseng v So Sin Mui Bonnie [2002] 4 HKC 532; Suen Ho Sun v Kamenar International Ltd [1989] 1 HKC 135; Hongkong Chinese Bank Ltd v Delon Photo & Hi-Fi Centre Ltd [2000] 3 HKC 71. 47.Having considered the submissions made by the parties, I do not agree with the submissions made by the plaintiff in this regard. In my view, the defendant was entitled to adduce and rely on evidence (including the Explanatory Memorandum, the Endorsement and the oral testimony of Mr Kai) to show that the SPA was not intended to be legally binding, and that the Cheque was not intended to be delivered to the plaintiff or presented for payment. My reasons are as follows. 48.Properly analyzed, all the authorities relied on by the plaintiff were decided on the basis of the parol evidence rule. Shortly put, the parol evidence rule means that if there is a written contract, oral or extrinsic evidence is not admissible to vary the terms of the contract. This rule has been justified on the ground that it upholds the value of written proof, effectuates the finality intended by the parties in recording their contract in written form and eliminates great inconvenience and troublesome litigation in many instances. See: Chitty on Contracts, 30th edn, Vol 1, para 12-096. 49.However, the parol evidence rule only applies when the terms of the parties’ agreement are wholly contained in the written contract but not otherwise See: Chitty on Contracts, 30th edn, Vol 1, para 12-098. This is the reason why the parol evidence rule does not apply if the intention to adduce extrinsic evidence (whether oral or in other forms) is to show, amongst others, that: (1) there is no contract between the parties; (2) there was no consideration or failure of consideration; (3) the contract was only a conditional contract; or (4) the true nature of the agreement. See: Chitty on Contracts, 30th edn, Vol 1, para 12-106, 12-108, 12-109 and 12-113. 50.In the context of a cheque, section 21 of the Bills of Exchange Ordinance is also relevant. Section 21 provides as follows:
51.By reason of section 21 of the Bills of Exchange Ordinance, it may be shown that delivery of a cheque was conditional or for a special purpose only, and not for the purpose of transferring the property in the bill. In other words, it may be shown that the delivery was in escrow (ie that the instrument was to be delivered so as not to take effect as a bill until a certain condition should have been fulfilled). See: Chalmers and Guest on Bills of Exchange, Cheques and Promissory Notes, 17th edn, para 2-152. 52.As regards admissibility of evidence, the learned authors of Chalmers and Guest on Bills of Exchange, Cheques and Promissory Notes, 17th edn, explained as follows (para 2-153):
(See also para 2-154 to 2-159, which explain further the circumstances where the parol evidence rule does not apply in the context of cheque.) 53.In the present case, if the defendant’s case is upheld, the SPA should clearly be read together with the Explanatory Memorandum and the Endorsement. If follows that the SPA alone did not contain the entire agreement, if any, between the parties. Besides, due to the Sincerity Representation, if the defendant’s case is upheld, the SPA was not intended to be an unconditional or binding agreement, nor was the Cheque intended to be passed on to the plaintiff for payment. In the circumstances, the situation is no different from a party seeking to assert that a written document purporting to be a contract is not a contract or is only a conditional contract but the condition has not been fulfilled. As shown by the authorities discussed above, the parol evidence rule does not apply in such circumstances. Accordingly, I am of the clear view that that the evidence sought to be relied on by the defendant in this regard is admissible. 54.Before leaving this issue, I would add this. The authorities relied on by the plaintiff (see paragraph 46 above) are well established. The above conclusion, however, does not in any way affect the principles expounded in those authorities. Nor is the intention of this court to suggest that those authorities were wrongly decided. The conclusion stated above is only a conclusion on the unusual facts of this case. In none of the authorities relied on by the plaintiff were there documents or endorsement similar to the Explanatory Memorandum or the Endorsement on the back of the Cheque. I. THE SPA AND THE CHEQUE – WHETHER LEGALLY BINDING 55.The question of whether there was an intention to be legally bound by the SPA and the issues concerning the Cheque are clearly inter-related. If there was an intention to be legally bound, it is difficult to see how the defendant’s case in respect of the delivery of the Cheque can succeed. On the contrary, if there was no intention to be legally bound, it is difficult to see how there would be an effective delivery of the Cheque. An alternative way of putting it is this: if the defendant or Mr Kai did not intend that the Cheque should be delivered to the plaintiff until he had a chance to meet the plaintiff and discuss the matter, it is unlikely that there was an intention to be legally bound by the SPA. 56.In considering this question, I bear in mind that parties signing contracts or documents of a contractual nature in a commercial context are generally regarded to have signed the same with an intention to be legally bound. Not only does the defendant in this case bear the burden of showing that there was no intention to be legally bound, a “high degree of probability” is required. However, where the requisite burden of proof is satisfied, the agreement will have no contractual effect. See: Orion v Sphere Drake [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 239, per Stuart-Smith LJ at pp 274-275. I.1 Inherent probability 57.A convenient starting point for analyzing this question is the inherent probability of the parties’ case. The key question is: in the context of this case, is it inherently probable that the estate agents would have asked Mr Kai to sign the SPA and to issue the Cheque so as to show sincerity to the plaintiff, and is it inherent probable that Mr Kai would have agreed to do so? In my view, the answer is in the affirmative. My reasons are as follows. 58.First, the signing of the SPA and the issue of the Cheque for the purpose of showing sincerity was consistent with the practice adopted by estate agents. 59.When Mr Choi testified at the trial, he confirmed that, as far as the residential properties market was concerned, it was common for estate agents to say to interested buyer that the market was good and it would be desirable to sign a provisional sale and purchase agreement and also to issue a cheque so as to show sincerity to the vendor. Mr Choi asserted that such a practice was “relatively few” in the industrial and commercial sector because normally the intended purchasers were companies and they would need to hold meetings before they could issue any cheque. However, Mr Choi agreed that when the interested buyer were individuals, the said practice as in cases of residential properties could also be adopted. This means that in cases where the interested buyer was a company controlled by an individual (like the defendant in the present case), the same practice of asking the interested buyer to sign a provisional sale and purchase agreement and to issue a cheque so as to show sincerity could be adopted. 60.Bearing this in mind and taking into account the fact that the property market in Hong Kong at the material time was going up (ie a vendors’ market), it is in my view very probable that the estate agents would have resorted to the same practice and asked Mr Kai to sign the SPA and issue the Cheque so as to show sincerity. At the time, the property market was going well and it was a rising market. This was confirmed at the trial and also mentioned in paragraph 30 of the Judgment dated 21 August 2008 (“O 14 Judgment”) delivered by A Cheung J (as he then was). The price for the Building was a substantial one and understandably estate agents in the position of the third party would be very keen to conclude the deal. Besides, the sole agency granted by the plaintiff to the third party was due to expire on 5 October 2007 and the third party was understandably eager to complete a deal as much as possible. Since the defendant was a company controlled by Mr Kai, there was no need for the defendant to hold any board meeting or shareholders’ meeting before the defendant could be persuaded to issue a cheque. 61.Second, it is conceivable that Mr Kai was so confident in his own ability to persuade the plaintiff to reduce the asking price if he could have a chance to meet the plaintiff that he was prepared to sign the SPA and issue the Cheque. 62.Mr Kai was at the time no doubt a successful businessman. As a successful businessman and his background as outlined above, Mr Kai naturally would have confidence in his negotiation skills. Further, Mr Kai placed emphasis in the fact that he did not intend to acquire the Building for profit-making purpose, but for the non-profit purpose of establishing an exhibition centre which was for the purpose of promoting Chinese art and calligraphy. Viewed thus and stepping into the shoes of Mr Kai, I accept that he at the time genuinely believed that he might be able to persuade the plaintiff to reduce the price since his reason for purchasing the Building was to organize an exhibition centre for the promotion of Chinese art. Obviously, Mr Kai believed that this non‑commercial reason for acquiring the Building, coupled with his status and position, would be helpful in his negotiation with the plaintiff. Had it been otherwise, Mr Kai would not have given his name card and his calligraphy book to Mr Choi and Mr Chang and asked them to pass them on to the plaintiff. 63.In this regard, it is pertinent to note that the following observations made by A Cheung J (as he then was) in his O 14 Judgment (at paragraph 37):
64.I fully appreciate that observations made in an Order 14 Judgment are primarily made for the purpose of deciding whether leave to defend should be granted and are (save possibly in the context of ruling on points of law and other instances where the doctrine of res judicata may also apply in interlocutory applications) not binding on the trial Judge when the action eventually comes to trial. However, having considered the evidence adduced at the trial and the parties’ submissions as well as having seen Mr Kai testifying at the trial, I respectfully agreed with the above-quoted observations by A Cheung J (as he then was). 65.Third, the Explanatory Memorandum and the Endorsement on the back of the Cheque (which are contemporaneous documents) also fortify the inherent probability of the defendant’s case. The proper interpretation of the contents of Explanatory Memorandum and the Endorsement will be dealt with below. For the purpose of the present discussion, I would confine the analysis to the question of whether the Explanatory Memorandum and the Endorsement negative or fortify the inherent probability of the defendant’s case. 66.In the O 14 Judgment, A Cheung J (as he then was) agreed with Mr Daniel Fung SC and Mr Gary Lam (who appeared for the defendant at the Order 14 hearing and also at this trial) that this case stands out from other dishonoured cheque cases in that the defendant had prepared the Explanatory Memorandum and also made the endorsement on the back of the Cheque (paragraph 23). Having considered the evidence on the whole, I too respectfully agree to this observation. In particular, as noted at the outset, I do agree that this case is unusual on the facts. More importantly, the contemporaneous documents raise a very fundamental questions: why did Mr Kai insist on having the Explanatory Memorandum and the Endorsement on the back of the Cheque? 67.In a normal sale and purchase transaction, one would not expect to see anything like the Explanatory Memorandum or the Endorsement. Mr Chang, when cross-examined, also accepted that the Explanatory Memorandum was usual. As stressed by the plaintiff, Mr Kai was a seasoned business and a person with experience in purchasing landed properties in Hong Kong. Hence, one would start from the premises that Mr Kai must have a reason for making the Explanatory Memorandum. 68.Viewed thus and considering the circumstances as a whole (including the meaning of the Explanatory Memorandum and the Endorsement as discussed below), I am of the view that the only reason for making the Explanatory Memorandum and the Endorsement is that Mr Kai did not regard the SPA as binding, and that he wanted to have something in writing so as to protect the defendant before he had a chance to meet the plaintiff. In this regard, I note that A Cheung J (as he then was) also took the same view (see the above-quoted paragraph 37 of the O 14 Judgment). It might be that the drafting of the Explanatory Memorandum and the Endorsement is not satisfactory from a lawyer’s point of view. However, in the context of inherent probability, it is sufficient to note that both the Explanatory Memorandum and the Endorsement were not drafted by lawyers, and that it is more relevant to consider the rationale behind the Explanatory Memorandum and the Endorsement. 69.Fourth, the circumstances concerning the making of the Endorsement on the back of the Cheque are also relevant. If the Sincerity Representation had not been made, it was difficult to see why the third party would have agreed to bring the Cheque back to Mr Kai on 2 October 2007 (ie after the SPA was signed by Mr Kai and the Cheque already issued and handed over to the third party). If the SPA was regarded as binding, the third party could certainly have declined on the ground that there was a done deal. Yet, the third party did take the Cheque back and did make the Endorsement on the back of the Cheque. Such contemporaneous conduct also supports the inherent probability of the defendant’s case. 70.Accordingly, I find that the defendant’s case in respect of the signing of the SPA and the issuing of the Cheque is inherent probable. I.2 Proper interpretation 71.The principles of interpreting a contractual document are well established. I believe it is only necessary to cite the following two passages to remind ourselves the key principles involved. 72.The first is the following cogent summary of the principles by Lord Hoffmann in Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 WLR 896 (at pp 912-913):
73.The second one is the other explanation by Lord Hoffmann in Jumbo King Ltd v Faithful Properties Ltd (1992) 2 HKCFAR 279 (at p 296):
74.When deciding to grant unconditional leave to the defendant to defend the Plaintiff, A Cheung J (as he then was) observed that the plaintiff’s case at first blush looks overwhelming. This is because paragraphs 1 and 4 of the Explanatory Memorandum are wholly consistent with the Cheque being issued for payment of the initial deposit for the purchase of the Building at the price of HK$158 million. Further, the Explanatory Memorandum did not say that the Cheque was only issued and the SPA signed to show sincerity on the part of the defendant, or that they were never meant to be handed over to the plaintiff. In addition, A Cheung J (as he then was) added that if the purpose of the meeting with the plaintiff was to negotiate the price, then signing the SPA and issuing the Cheque would not help the defendant bargain down the price requested by the plaintiff; nor would it show any sincerity to the plaintiff by signing the SPA and issuing the Cheque if the true intention of the defendant was to meet with the plaintiff and then ask him to reduce the price. 75.However, A Cheung J (as he then was) observed as follows in his O 14 Judgment:
76.Having considered the contents of the Explanatory Memorandum against the background of this case and the parties’ submissions made at this trial, I come to the view that the Explanatory Memorandum did mean to say that the SPA was not legally binding and that the defendant wanted to discuss with the plaintiff the price before the deal would be regarded as a concluded deal. My reasons are as follows. 77.First, I agree with the observations made by A Cheung J as set out in paragraphs 26 to 32 of his O 14 Judgment. Having heard the evidence and the parties’ submissions, I am of the view that the construction contended on behalf of the defendant at the O 14 application is the correct one. 78.Second, clause 2 of the Explanatory Memorandum is important. It referred to, as noted above, “if” the transaction could be completed. Had the defendant understood that the SPA was a legally binding one, such language would not be used. Instead, clause 2 in my view shows that the defendant did not regarded the SPA as a legally binding agreement, and the reason for such a view on the part of the defendant was because of the Sincerity Representation. 79.Third, clause 5 of the Explanatory Memorandum is also important. It referred to the return of the Cheque if the deal was not successful within 30 days. Plainly clause 5 could not be referring to the completion of the sale and purchase of the Building. Mr Kai, as the plaintiff stressed, was experienced in acquiring properties in Hong Kong. He could not possibly have intended or understood that the whole process of the sale and purchase of the Building could be completed within 30 days as there remained the need, amongst others, to sign the formal sale and purchase agreement and the checking of title before completion could take place. Accordingly, the reference to the 30-day period in clause 5 of the Explanatory Memorandum could only mean that the defendant wanted to have a period of 30 days to meet the plaintiff and to discuss the price. 80.Fourth, I wholly reject the third party’s contention that the Explanatory Memorandum was only intended to deal with the question of commission. If that be the case, the same could be addressed in clause 11 of the SPA itself. In fact, as can be seen from clause 11 of the SPA, the plaintiff (as vendor) was to pay HK$1,580,000 to the third party as commission whereas the defendant (as purchaser) was only to pay HK$790,000 to the third party as commission. In other words, there is no question that the third party did not want the plaintiff to know that the defendant was paying less commission than the plaintiff. 81.It follows from the above that the same interpretation should also be given to the contents of the Endorsement on the back of the Cheque. In other words, I rule that the contents of the Endorsement also show that the Cheque was not intended to be passed to the plaintiff for presentation, and that the third party (through Mr Chang and Mr Choi) was aware of this meaning. 82.Before leaving this topic, I should perhaps also add this. At this trial, the plaintiff also sought to place emphasis on the contents of the SPA with a view to showing that the parties must have entered into a legally binding agreement. In my view, reliance on the SPA does not really assist the plaintiff. If the SPA was legally binding, its contents of course could be relied on. However, if the SPA was not intended to be legally binding by reason of the circumstances it was signed (including the Explanatory Memorandum and the Endorsement), there was no point in referring to the contents of the SPA to show that it was a legally binding agreement. I.3 The witnesses’ testimonies 83.By reason of the above analysis on the inherent probability of the defendant’s case and the meaning of the Endorsement and the Explanatory Memorandum, I accept Mr Kai’s evidence that the third party did make the Sincerity Representation before he signed the SPA. In reaching this conclusion, I have also taken into account the letter in Chinese dated 15 October 2007 written by the defendant in response to Messrs Y T Chan & Co’s letter before action. Although the contents of that letter from the defendant are not entirely accurate when considered in light of the overall evidence, it did on the whole support the making of the Sincerity Representation by the third party and that it was a contemporaneous document before this action was commenced. 84.I would also add that during his testimony, Mr Kai was quite adamant that he was deceived. He pointed out that he had purchased a lot of properties but this was the only occasion he was deceived. Looking at the circumstances as a whole, one can understand the frustration felt by Mr Kai, although this frustration was more caused by the third party rather than the plaintiff. 85.In the circumstances, I reject the testimonies of Mr Chang and Mr Choi insofar as they are in conflict with that of Mr Kai in respect of the making of the Sincerity Representation. In particular, as noted above, I find Mr Chang’s suggestion that the Explanatory Memorandum was only intended to deal with the question of commission inherently improbable. I think Mr Chang made out such an explanation with a view to explaining away the effect of the Explanatory Memorandum. 86.Accordingly, I find as a fact that: (1) the third party did make the Sincerity Representation before Mr Kai signed the SPA; (2) the defendant did rely on the Sincerity Representation when Mr Kai signed the SPA and issued the Cheque; (3) the SPA as signed by Mr Kai was not intended to be legally binding, and that the Cheque was not to be passed to the plaintiff for presentation until Mr Kai had a chance to meet the plaintiff to discuss the price; and (4) the third party was well aware of the aforesaid matters. 87.In this regard, I would add that the defendant’s purchase of units at Wah Shing Centre does not affect my above analysis. The question of whether the Sincerity Representation was made and whether the SPA was intended to be legally bound should be considered as at 29 September 2007 (or latest 2 October 2007 when the Endorsement was made at the request of Mr Kai). The purchase of units at Wah Shing Centre was subsequent to the signing of the SPA. Since the SPA was not intended to be legally binding and the defendant understood it that way, I cannot see how the subsequent purchase of units at Wah Shing Centre could affect the credibility of Mr Kai or the defendant. I.4 THE ROLE OF THE THIRD PARTY 88.The question as to whether the third party was at the time acting as the plaintiff’s agent or the defendant’s agent or both is a question of fact to be decided in the circumstances of this case. See: Green Park Properties Ltd v Dorku Ltd [2000] 2 HKLRD 400, per Cheung J (as he then was) at pp 417J-418E. Ms Mok SC, leading counsel for the plaintiff, confirmed during her oral closing submissions that the plaintiff did not dispute the principle as expounded in Green Park Properties Ltd v Dorku Ltd (above). 89.Applying the approach in Green Park Properties Ltd v Dorku Ltd (above), I find that the third party was acting as the agent of the plaintiff when the Sincerity Representation was made. My reasons was as follows. 90.First, it is not disputed that the third party was at the time the sole agent of the plaintiff. As stressed by Mr Fung SC for the defendant, it was the third party (as opposed to individual such as Ms Ngai) who was appointed as the plaintiff’s agent for the sale of the Building. Viewed thus, I reject the plaintiff’s pleaded case that Ms Ngai acted for the plaintiff in the sale of the Building whereas Mr Choi and Mr Chang acted for the defendant in the purchase of the building. I regard such a distinction as highly artificial and not justified on the facts of this case. 91.Second, since the SPA was not legally binding at the time, clause 11 of the SPA (whereby the parties agreed to pay commission to the third party as their agents) was not yet operative. There was no other document whereby the defendant had appointed the third party as its agent. Besides, as pointed out by Mr Kai in his testimony, the defendant did not approach the third party. Rather, it was the third party who approached the defendant. 92.Third, even if the third party was at the time acting as agent for both the plaintiff and the defendant, the making of the Sincerity Representation should be viewed as having been made in the third party’s capacity as the plaintiff’s agent on top of its capacity as the defendant’s agent. The Sincerity Representation was related to the negotiation of the price, a matter which would affect both the plaintiff and the defendant in their respective capacities as the potential vendor and the potential purchaser. 93.There remains the question of whether the third party had the requisite authority to make the Sincerity Representation. In this regard, I have no hesitation that the answer must be in the affirmative. As the sole agent of the plaintiff, the third party must necessarily had the implied or ostensible authority to conduct the negotiations with the defendant, which would include the making of the Sincerity Representation. 94.In the present case, it is regrettable that the third party did not fully or properly perform its role as an agent. As noted above, Mr Kai gave his name card and two books on Chinese calligraphy to the third party on 20 September 2007 with a request that the same be passed to the plaintiff. Yet, the third party did not do so until 2 October 2007 when the SPA and the Cheque were also passed to the plaintiff. The third party also did not reveal the existence of the Explanatory Memorandum to the plaintiff, nor did the third party conveyed Mr Kai’s wishes to meet with the plaintiff before the Cheque should be delivered to the plaintiff. On the evidence available, the only reasonable inference to be drawn is that the third party had not handled the situation properly, which lead to the opposing perceptions of the situation on the part of the plaintiff and the defendant. I.5 Clause 18 of the SPA 95.As noted above, the plaintiff also relied on clause 18 of the SPA which stated that the SPA superseded “all prior negotiations, representation, understanding and agreements of the parties thereto”. This contention on the part of the plaintiff can be disposed of briefly. Since the SPA was not legally binding, this clause 18 could not have any effect. The effect of the Sincerity Representation is that the entire SPA (including clause 18 thereof) would not be legally binding. I.6 Conclusion on the Sincerity Representation 96.By reason of the aforesaid, I find and rule that the defendant has established its case on the Sincerity Representation. It follows that the SPA was not legally binding and that the defendant is not liable on the Cheque. J. THE OTHER REPRESENTATIONS 97.In view of the above conclusion, it is strictly not necessary to deal with the Vacant Possession Representation or the Fit for Purpose Representation. However, for the sake of completeness, I shall briefly deal with them below. 98.As far as the Fit for Purpose Representation is concerned, I find and rule that the defendant failed to make out its case. 99.First, on the evidence, the defendant made enquiry with the Planning Department on 27 September 2007 before signing the SPA on 29 September 2007. This was on top of the defendant’s enquiries with other government departments. This shows that the defendant knew that it would have to make the necessary application even before Mr Kai signed the SPA. 100.Second, more importantly, it must be obvious to the defendant that the plaintiff did not have the final say on the change of user so that the Building (being an industrial building) could be used as an exhibition centre. Hence, whatever representation was made in this regard, I find it difficult to accept that the defendant had relied on it before Mr Kai signed the SPA. 101.Third, the defendant decided not to buy the Building and no proper application for change of user had been made. Accordingly, no matter what perceived difficulties there might be, it was premature to say that an application for change of user would necessarily and ultimately rejected by the relevant government departments. 102.As regards the Vacant Possession Representation, I likewise find and rule that the defendant failed to make out its case. As noted above, the SPA expressly stated that the Building was to be sold subject to tenancies. Particulars of tenancies were included in a schedule to the SPA. Furthermore, copies of tenancy agreements were provided to the defendant before Mr Kai signed the SPA on 29 September 2007. In the circumstances, I do not think the defendant could possibly establish that the Vacant Possession Representation had been made by conduct. 103.Furthermore, when Mr Kai testified, he said during cross‑examination to the effect that whether he would insist on vacant possession depended on the price: if the price was reduced to a level he found acceptable, he would be prepared to accept a purchase subject to tenancies; on the other hand, if the price was not reduced to a level he found acceptable, he would want vacant possession. This goes to show that vacant possession was not that material in the defendant’s decision to purchase. Rather, what was material to the defendant was the price. K. CONCLUSION & POSTSCRIPT 104.For the reasons set out above, the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant fails and I dismiss the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant. Likewise, the third party’s claim against the defendant also fails and I also dismissed the third party’s claim against the defendant. 105.On the question of costs, I make an order nisi that: (1) the plaintiff do pay to the defendant the costs of and occasioned by the plaintiff’s claim, with certificate for two counsel for the trial, to be taxed if not agreed; and (2) the third party do pay to the defendant the costs of and occasioned by the third party’s defence and counterclaim, to be taxed if not agreed. 106.It remains for me to express my gratitude to all the counsel for their able assistance rendered at this trial. I do not mean any disrespect to counsel even though I do not find it necessary to address each and every point they made in their closing submissions. 107.Lastly, by way of postscript, may I add this remark. This case is an example which shows that the estate agents’ practice of suggesting a potential purchaser to sign a preliminary agreement and to issue a cheque to show sincerity may be a recipe for potential misunderstanding unless the matter is handled very well. It is time for estate agents to reconsider whether such a practice should be continued, and if yes, how such practice should be carried out properly so as to avoid any unnecessary or potential misunderstanding.
Ms Alice Mok SC and Mr Lee Tung Ming, instructed by Vincent T K Cheung, Yap & Co, for the plaintiff Mr Daniel Fung SC and Mr Gary Lam, instructed by Chu & Lau, for thedefendant Ms Shannon Leung, instructed by Cheung & Choy, for the third party | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCA 2192/2007