Lucy Michaels 訴 港島海逸君綽酒店
Mrs Michaels claims for breach of contract and emotional stress after refusing to pay a deposit for a 1-month serviced apartment. Her claim is struck out. The licence agreement was not executed. The judge notes "it is plain and obvious that there was no legally enforceable agreement" and further "that there is no realistic prospect for Mrs Michaels to prove that Harbour Grand had any intention to inflict any injury (physical or mental)", nor that it was reckless to that risk. "Any such suggestion is, in my view, fanciful".
Mrs Michaels在拒絕付出服務式住宅1個月按金後，指出終止合約令他情緒壓抑。他的申索被剔出。律師指出「這是白紙黑梁及顯然並無法律執行的合約」，並進一步指運氣「這是現實上並無理據予Mrs Michaels證明海韻軒在任何傾向導致衝突或傷害(無論心理或生理上)」，甚至這是對這個風險非常脆弱。以上任何建議對法官來說是奇特的。
RealForum 相關主題: [基金股][恆生指數]長江和記實業(0001，長江實業)專區
會員: greatsoup 於2018-09-16 23:56:39 發表
原文網址: https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=117377&currpage=T 上一篇 下一篇