我試過得，點解係唔得
我臨約寫明30日內大訂經律師樓交賣家
簽約後撞正業主隱藏債務兼破產 $46萬訂金凍過水
洪洪洪嘉豪
600 回覆
346 Like
8 Dislike
劃線支票點冒認？咁係aa無確認賣家身份喎
其實，對好多人，P-loan 借百零萬好濕碎。
禁幾個制就有
禁幾個制就有
要出幾次post
問題係OD個risk點解無端端由銀行過左落買家到？
買家無同意過去bear個risk㗎喎
佢咁做去推高non secured debt嘅priority 就係繞過金管局喎
買家無同意過去bear個risk㗎喎
佢咁做去推高non secured debt嘅priority 就係繞過金管局喎
有claim都無用啦
條友bankrupt左
佢呢assets要找銀行條數有淨先找到其他數
同埋46萬佢轉左俾人，而人地未轉走就可能set aside到
如果再轉多幾次/還街數還左
點追
Estoppel by convention好似未必關事
Negligence 大啲機會入到
覺得SC會賠錢settle
利申：唔識鳩噏
條友bankrupt左
佢呢assets要找銀行條數有淨先找到其他數
同埋46萬佢轉左俾人，而人地未轉走就可能set aside到
如果再轉多幾次/還街數還左
點追
Estoppel by convention好似未必關事
Negligence 大啲機會入到
覺得SC會賠錢settle
利申：唔識鳩噏
張身份證同名同姓，跟住張支票咪寫冒認嗰個人嘅全名囉
關張支票有沒劃線咩事？
關張支票有沒劃線咩事？
唔係唔得，但事實上而家Common嘅做法係寫賣方律師樓個名
你可以搵吓啲新聞，因為之前真係有人因為咁樣賴嘢
所謂Common只係因為aa 份臨約template 無咁揀
好多人換樓想提早攞訂又冇人教佢哋可以加落去
好多人換樓想提早攞訂又冇人教佢哋可以加落去
清楚自己資不抵債亦有意圖去申請破產，但係繼續完成交易去收買家訂金，應該算係詐騙
你覺得一個預咗老破既人會拎去還？
以後買二手樓一定要去到交易先一炮過放數，因為你唔知上手欠各路街數幾多錢。
點解唔會？大把老破既人都會還錢
爆多幾單推高一手銷情
你真係唔識喎
宜家就係層樓同私人貸款都係渣打借
樓契 All Monies
所以渣打連埋私人貸款一齊計
賣價唔夠冚晒兩筆就唔放契
宜家就係層樓同私人貸款都係渣打借
樓契 All Monies
所以渣打連埋私人貸款一齊計
賣價唔夠冚晒兩筆就唔放契
佢夠還就唔會唔比業主賣樓啦
之前樓值錢，未批囉，依家縮曬水，仲要All Money ，咁就睇下律師樓第一口問佢All Money 定齋樓按。
咁如果有對 specific cash assets 有 proprietary claim，針對嗰筆錢應該有 priority over 銀行
但呢啲情況嘅 proprietary claim 最大問題都係個 sum 太細，相對要洗嘅 costs 唔值搏，隨時做晒 discovery 先發現啲錢走晒
Negligence 嘅 potential weakness 就係啲 debt 係之後 incur，咁就從來都冇 misstatement 或者有句嘢話唔好 rely on 我呢封信呀，咁就冇咗個 assumption of responsibility
但呢啲情況嘅 proprietary claim 最大問題都係個 sum 太細，相對要洗嘅 costs 唔值搏，隨時做晒 discovery 先發現啲錢走晒
Negligence 嘅 potential weakness 就係啲 debt 係之後 incur，咁就從來都冇 misstatement
或者有句嘢話唔好 rely on 我呢封信呀，咁就冇咗個 assumption of responsibility香港所謂法治，就算唔計政治案件，其實都係得啖笑
問題係銀行係secured debt 嚟
有proprietary claim係咪priority高啲我有疑問
我都認為關鍵係個金額
做set aside一般一千萬以上物業先值得做下
得46萬打贏官司都未必夠俾律師費
如果個debt喺之後incur
緊加無理由要purchaser去bear喎
我會認為即使加句唔好rely on封信一樣都走唔甩
因為個norm同一個合理嘅人係無其他方法去check條數嘅
所以唔會甩到liability
有proprietary claim係咪priority高啲我有疑問
我都認為關鍵係個金額
做set aside一般一千萬以上物業先值得做下
得46萬打贏官司都未必夠俾律師費
如果個debt喺之後incur
緊加無理由要purchaser去bear喎
我會認為即使加句唔好rely on封信一樣都走唔甩
因為個norm同一個合理嘅人係無其他方法去check條數嘅
所以唔會甩到liability
着西裝
但係銀行同 purchaser 冇任何 contractual relationship，in particular 銀行冇任何責任唔畀個 vendor mortgagor incur further debt
另外 purchaser 完全係 pure economic loss 嚟
所以，purchaser 唯一 establish liability against 銀行嘅方法應該係 Hedley Byrne v Heller，但呢個duty 嘅前切係要有 voluntary assumption of responsibility，正如 Hedley Bryne 本身咁，有個 disclaimer 就會 defeat 個 claim
As to proprietary claim，我嘅理解係對個筆特定嘅錢 (if still traceable) 應該係有 priority 的；銀行嘅 debt 應該係只係 secured by and to the extent of the mortgage，而個 security 就係個 mortgaged propert；mortgaged property 以外嘅嘢，冇理由銀行有 priority (亦都係點解如果 security 嘅 value 唔多冚條 secured debt，個 secured creditor 都可以出 SD 同 petition 破佢産)
另外 purchaser 完全係 pure economic loss 嚟
所以，purchaser 唯一 establish liability against 銀行嘅方法應該係 Hedley Byrne v Heller，但呢個duty 嘅前切係要有 voluntary assumption of responsibility，正如 Hedley Bryne 本身咁，有個 disclaimer 就會 defeat 個 claim
As to proprietary claim，我嘅理解係對個筆特定嘅錢 (if still traceable) 應該係有 priority 的；銀行嘅 debt 應該係只係 secured by and to the extent of the mortgage，而個 security 就係個 mortgaged propert；mortgaged property 以外嘅嘢，冇理由銀行有 priority (亦都係點解如果 security 嘅 value 唔多冚條 secured debt，個 secured creditor 都可以出 SD 同 petition 破佢産)