Legal System Of Hong Kong Case Study 2022

Running head: LEGAL SYSTEM OF HONG KONG
LEGAL SYSTEM OF HONG KONG
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1LEGAL SYSTEM OF HONG KONG
Table of Contents
Issue 1.........................................................................................................................................2
Issue 2.........................................................................................................................................3
Issue 3.........................................................................................................................................5
Issue 4.........................................................................................................................................6
References..................................................................................................................................8

2LEGAL SYSTEM OF HONG KONG
Issue 1
Issue
Whether Holden shall be able to recover the balance of the contract amount.
Rule
A contract is an agreement enforceable by law. It comprises of an offer and its
acceptance. It is the offeror who makes the offers and the offeree accepts or rejects such
offer. Thereby, it is clear that the offeror should the intention to make the offer and the
offeree must have a clear intention to accept the offer, with being coerced or misrepresented
(Chui and Roebuck 1991). The offer must have a consideration, which is the price asked by
the offeror in exchange of his promise. Therefore, after the execution of the terms of contract,
be it sales or services, the consideration amount becomes payable. The offeree shall be held
for breach of contract if he refuses to pay the amount of consideration, wholly or partly.
A contract is usually a written document; however, it could also be oral, which is also
admissible in a court of law as per the common law of contract.
A counter-offer is the response to the offeror’s initial offer. It signifies that the
original offer has been rejected and replaced by the terms of the new one. The offeree in case
of a counter-offer has the option either: a) accepts it; b) rejects it; c) make a fresh offer. The
counter-offer is not binding unless it is accepted by the parties to the contract (Chui and
Roebuck 1991).
Application
In the given case, the IO of Stanford Mansions entered into a contract with Holden for
refurbishing the clubhouse of their estate. Therefore, IO or the Stanford Mansion being the
offeror while Holden be the offeree to this agreement. The consideration amount agreed upon

3LEGAL SYSTEM OF HONG KONG
by the parties to this contract was $1M. The exchange of an offer and acceptance between the
offeror and the offeree, agreeing upon a consideration amount shows that they both had clear
intention and free consent to form the agreement.
Holden had to some extra work in the course of the refurbishment, which was not
required initially, thereby taking up some extra time. Holden put extra resources and time to
finish the work on time yet was not paid the entire consideration amount, as the residents of
the estate complained of the high cost of refurbishment. Holden was only paid $0.5M, which
is half the amount of consideration promised in the contract. in this regard, Holden can bring
a suit of breach of contract against the IO of Stanford Mansion.
The acceptance of the half consideration amount as a full and final settlement shall
not be considered as a counter-offer, as it was not placed as an initial response to the original
offer. By the original or initial offer and subsequently the binding agreement, the estate shall
be liable to pay the entire sum of consideration to Holden even though he accepted half the
amount as full and final settlement. Holden could sue the estate for breach of contract for
non-payment of consideration amount.
Conclusion
Therefore, Holden shall be able to recover the balance of the contract amount.
Issue 2
Issue
Whether Holden shall be able to claim the bonus amount promised by the IO of
Stanford Mansion.
Rule

4LEGAL SYSTEM OF HONG KONG
The offeror and the offeree agree to the terms of an agreement before signing the
document that not only includes the consideration amount, but also comprises of the time of
completion of the work, bonus amounts for extra work, dispute resolution methods, et cetera.
Therefore, it is the document of the contract that holds the utmost importance in case a
dispute occurs pertaining to the contract.
However, in case of an oral contract, the common law of contract allows it to be
admissible to a court of law, now a tribunal as well.
In Hartley v. Ponsonby (1809) 119 ER 1471, the sailors were given extra wages as per
the claim of extra work, irrespective of their agreement. While in the case of Stilk v. Myrick
(1809) 170 ER 1168, the sailors were not awarded a bonus for it was held that they did no
work that was beyond the terms of their contract. In the English case of Williams v. Roffey
[1980] 1 All ER 312, the Court of Appeal held that it is not essential to be extremely
technical about consideration; however, the offeror should pay what he promised and the
offeree should perform what he had promised to perform (Hughes, Champion, and Murdoch
2015).
Application
In this case, for finishing the refurbishment work on time, Holden was promised to be
given a bonus sum of $68,940 by the IO, if he could finish the work on the scheduled date as
the IO was keen to reopen the clubhouse for Reunification Day. However, Holden was not
only not given the bonus amount even though he finished the work on time, but he was also
paid half the consideration amount that was promised in the agreement. The IO breached the
promised that he himself made to Holden for finishing the refurbishment work on time,
therefore making Holden eligible to sue the IO or the estate for recovering the promised
amount, irrespective of the fact that whether such promise was written or unwritten.

5LEGAL SYSTEM OF HONG KONG
Holden could state that he had to replaced the drain pipes even though they were not
meant to be changed initially, which took up a lot of his time and threw him off the schedule
for a while. However, he engaged in more resources and time, by rejecting other
refurbishment offers and managed to finish this work on schedule. Holden could show that he
had a financial loss by investing more time on this contract and by rejecting other offers,
thereby deserving the promised bonus amount (Hughes, Champion, and Murdoch 2015).
Additionally, Holden could show that he had to do the extra work or changing the pipes
which was initially not required in the refurbishment work, as seen in Hartley v. Ponsonby
(1809) 119 ER 1471 and Williams v. Roffey [1980] 1 All ER 312.
The court or the tribunal shall evaluate the promise to pay the bonus amount made by
the IO, the extra work done by Holden and the loss sustained by him for devoting more time
on this project, and then shall decide on awarding the bonus to holden subsequently (Hughes,
Champion, and Murdoch 2015).
Conclusion
Therefore, Holden shall be able to claim the bonus amount promised by the IO of Stanford
Mansion.
Issue 3
Issue
1. To determine the civil court and/or tribunal where Holden shall be able to commence
the legal proceeding against the IO.
2. To determine the route of appeal that shall be followed in case Holden is dissatisfied
with the judgment of the court or tribunal.

6LEGAL SYSTEM OF HONG KONG
Solution
A contract usually specifies the appropriate legal authority that shall deal with the
dispute in case the contract is breach. However, in case that is not specified in the contract
document or in case it is an oral contract, the parties to the contract may follow the general
hierarchy of the court system of the place where the contract has been formed or executed.
In Hong Kong, the District Court has a power to deal with claims of damages from
$75,000 to $3M (Lo, Cheng, and Chui 2019). A single bench presides over the District
Courts, without any jury. On a similar footing, a claimant can approach the Labour Tribunal
for recovering wages or consideration of a contract, including bonus or extra wages promised
for extra work.
As for Appeal, the claimant can approach the Court of Appeal in case he is
unsatisfied with the decision made by the District Court. The Court of Appeal is constituted
by a 3 judge-bench court. While, in case the claimant is unsatisfied with the decision of the
Labour Tribunal, he could approach the Court of First Instance, which is presided by a single
judge-bench, without a jury (Lo, Cheng, and Chui 2019).
Conclusion
Therefore, Holden shall be eligible to approach the District Court or the Land
Tribunal for commencing his legal proceeding against the IO. In case he is dissatisfied with
the decision of the district court, he may appeal before the Court of Appeal. In case he
chooses the Land Tribunal and is not satisfied with its order, he may appeal before the Court
of First Instance for further redressal.
Issue 4
Issue

7LEGAL SYSTEM OF HONG KONG
Whether the legal profession should be fused in order to authorise the lawyers to act
both as a barrister and a solicitor.
Solution
Fusing both the profession of barrister and solicitor together would lower the hassle of
the clients to go to two different entity for the same issue, thereby saving time and financial
resources of the clients (Lo, Cheng, and Chui 2019). Usage of both the entities for the same
case often leads to confusion of the application of law and adoption of specific measures that
the entities may prescribe differently. Therefore, it is wise to combine both the profession,
which would facilitate in reducing the cost of the client.
However, some are of the opinion that the fusion would tamper with the specialization
required for both the profession differently. It is often said that a division in the profession
increases free job opportunities and a free market competition (Lo, Cheng, and Chui 2019).
Nonetheless, it is more rational to reduce the cost of the claimants and petitioners as a
part of a conscious judicial system of a modern State, thereby suggesting the fusion of the
two professions.

8LEGAL SYSTEM OF HONG KONG
References
Chui, C. and Roebuck, D., 1991. Hong Kong Contracts: Autonomy and Creativity (Vol. 2).
Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Hartley v. Ponsonby (1809) 119 ER 1471
Hughes, W., Champion, R. and Murdoch, J., 2015. Construction contracts: law and
management. Routledge.
Lo, S.H., Cheng, K.K.Y. and Chui, W.H., 2019. The Hong Kong Legal System. Cambridge
University Press.
Stilk v. Myrick (1809) 170 ER 1168
Williams v. Roffey [1980] 1 All ER 312