Termination of a provisional agreement for tenancy for false advertising.

Hello all, I am about to enter a tenancy agreement in the new territories in a village house, I have signed the provisional contract and paid a deposit.

However I am currently having doubts as to whether the place is as advertised. The advert that was placed with the agent specifically mentions a car parking space.

However, as is the case in many villages in HK, the roads are pretty badly designed. So this place has what is claimed as a garden that can be used to park my car right in front of the house. The problem is, the "entrance" to this garden from the road in the village actually passes in front of the block next to the one I will be renting.

Now the landlord has claimed that that is technically a road and they cannot park there so I am free to park mine and shouldn't have to worry about being blocked in. However, when I went there to view twice, next door's tenant on the 3rd floor apparently had their car parked right in the "entrance" to my garden. I was told that they were just parking there for convenience because currently the place is empty and they apparently have their own parking space further out.

Still, I'm beginning to worry that this could be a problem, especially if the person is quite unreasonable, or has a tendency to block me in. I will be using my car a lot going in and out for obvious reasons.

Anyway, without getting into legalities of land rights and use, which I don't really care honestly. I just want to know if there is any legal protection for me as a "potential" tenant that has signed a provisional agreement that if it turns out on the day I sign the full lease agreement and I manage to get a hold of the guy still parking there and a big argument occurs, for example between that person and the landlord over the use of the land.

Can I reasonable back out of this provisional agreement without having to forfeit the deposit I have made or having to pay the "penalty" under the "tenant fails to perform" clause to both the agents and the landlord because it was false advertising to begin with?

Many thanks.

Touch base with Shane Weir for a quick opinion on this shane@hongkonglaw.com