Indemnity for 'haunted flat' buyer
Court finds agent should have told about death of young boy
A businessman who pulled out of a deal to buy a flat after finding it haunted has won back the $300,000 he paid as a deposit, with a judge ruling yesterday the agency handling the sale should have told him a boy had fallen to his death there.
The judge, Recorder Benjamin Yu, ruled Aaron Shum Wan-lung was not entitled to the return of the deposit itself, but ordered Centaline Property Agency to pay him an equal sum in compensation.
Mr Yu said Centaline's agent failed in his duty when he assured Mr Shum there was nothing weird or wrong about the flat, without checking with the seller.
But because the question had not been relayed to the owner, Dennis Leung Fai-tat, the provisional sale and purchase agreement for the $10 million Kowloon Tong flat - from the balcony of which Mr Leung's four-year-old boy had plunged to his death - could not be rescinded and the vendor was therefore entitled to keep his money.
Mr Recorder Yu dismissed Centaline's counterclaim for $200,000, representing the buyer's and seller's commission to the agency.
Mr Shum had earlier told the Court of First Instance that he was introduced in June 2001 to a Centaline agent, Victor Yeung, who showed him a number of flats.
On June 28, Mr Shum, his wife and the agent twice inspected a flat in Village Gardens, Yau Yat Chuen.
On the second inspection Mr Shum said he asked the agent whether there was 'anything weird' or 'anything wrong' with the flat and Mr Yeung said there was not. Mr Shum said Mr Yeung told him: 'No, no, no. The flat owner is selling the flat because he is going to emigrate to Australia.'
The plaintiff said he asked the same questions again before he signed the agreement and received the same answers.
A few days later, a friend told him about the death.
He confronted Mr Yeung, who said he was not aware of it as he had only worked in the area for two weeks. But the friend, who worked in the property sector, said the agent worked there for nine months.
Mr Shum bought the suit through his jewellery company, Jopard Holdings.
In yesterday's judgment, Mr Yu said the questions asked by Mr Shum were more consistent with him seeking to find information from his agent than with an inquiry through the agent with the vendor.
The judge added the agent would have had no difficulty finding out about the tragedy but had made no inquiry.
'Mr Yeung should have undertaken reasonable inquiry before answering his client's query and he failed in his duty when he gave the assurance to Mr Shum without first having done so,' he said.
