Jayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & Jamil
  • About
  • Our People
    • Partners
    • Consultant
    • Associates
  • Practice Areas
  • Publications
    • Legal Updates
    • Legal Cauldron (Temporary suspended)
    • Articles
    • News & Bulletin
  • We Care
  • Careers
  • Contact Us

Legal Update 2 of 2016

    Home Legal Updates Legal Update 2 of 2016
    NextPrevious

    Legal Update 2 of 2016

    By admin | Legal Updates | 0 comment | 8 January, 2017 | 0

    Contract – Whether right for purchasers to resile from their promise not to sue and claim damages for late delivery.

    Case:

    Oxbridge Height Sdn Bhd v Abdul Razak Mohd Yusof & Anor [2015] 3 MLRA 59

    Brief Facts:

    • The appellant (“Oxbridge”) was a housing developer for a housing project (“the project”).
    • The respondents (“the purchasers”) purchased a unit from Oxbridge through a sale and purchase agreement (“SPA”) dated 17 April 2006.
    • Clause 23 of the SPA required Oxbridge to deliver vacant possession to purchasers within 24 months from the date of the SPA.
    • Failing to follow Clause 23 would make Oxbridge liable to pay the purchasers liquidated and ascertained damages (“LAD”).
    • Due to the flooding between December 2006 and early 2007, the project suffered financial difficulties and stalled.
    • The project was classified as a “projek lewat” and “projek sakit” by the JPN, which reported that the project suffered delays because Oxbridge faced a force majeure (i.e. the flooding).
    • Oxbridge and the purchasers subsequently entered into a settlement agreement (“SA”) dated 10 October 2011.
    • The SA provided that:
    1. the vendor (i.e. Oxbridge) has requested for an extension of time to complete the project;
    2. the purchasers are to waive the LAD for late delivery until the “New Completion Date” which is 12 months from the date of the SA; and
    3. the purchasers can make a claim for LAD if vacant possession could not be delivered by the new completion date.
    • Oxbridge delivered vacant possession of the purchasers’ unit well within 12 months from the date of the SA.
    • However, the purchasers filed a claim in the House-buyers Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) against Oxbridge for payment of LAD based on the supposed delivery date in the SPA.
    • The Tribunal decided in favour of the purchasers.
    • Oxbridge sued the purchasers for, inter alia, breach of the SA in the High Court but the claim was dismissed.
    • Oxbridge appealed against the High Court’s decision.

    Decision: Allowing Oxbridges appeal

    • The High Court judge had erred in his assessment of the evidence, and had failed to consider that the project was labeled a “projek sakit” by JPN as it was delayed due to the flood.
    • Oxbridge made it plain that it could not continue with the project unless the LAD claims were waived in view of its financial difficulties resulting from the flood.
    • The larger majority of house buyers, including the purchasers, agreed to a waiver, had their houses completed and delivered by Oxbridge within the new completion date under the SA.
    • Despite agreeing to the waiver, the purchasers still proceeded to file a claim against Oxbridge and obtained an award of RM50,000 as LAD calculated from the date of the SPA.
    • On the facts, the purchasers’ action constituted a clear breach of the SA.
    • There was no total contracting out of the LAD provision in the SPA.
    • If vacant possession had not been delivered by the new completion date, the purchasers could still sue for LAD.
    • It would be in the public interest, and in the interest of the house buyers, if the law allowed a waiver of LAD on terms as specified in the SA in this instance.
    • Therefore, it was not right and proper for the purchasers, despite their promise to waive the LAD under the SA, to resile from their promise and sue for late delivery under the SPA instead.

    No tags.

    admin

    https://t.me/pump_upp

    More posts by admin

    Related Post

    • Legal Update 9 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can a civil servant be dismissed from employment by a local authority without affording him the right to be heard? Case: PIHAK BERKUASA TATATERTIB MAJLIS PERBANDARAN SEBERANG PERAI & ANOR v. MUZIADI MUKHTAR [2020] 1Read more

    • Legal Update 10 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can the payment of quit rent, assessment rates, electricity and water bills be used to prove ownership of property? Case: HS REALTY SDN BHD v. YOW HONG SOON [2020] 1 LNS 230 Brief Facts: HSRead more

    • Legal Update 11 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can accused persons who are convicted of disobeying the Movement Control Order appeal for alternative punishment instead of imprisonment in the interest of justice? Case: CHIN CHEE WEI & ANOR V PP [2020] 1 LNSRead more

    • Legal Update 12 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can a foreign national have a permanent contract of employment? Case: AHMAD ZAHRI MIRZA ABDUL HAMID v. AIMS CYBERJAYA SDN BHD [2020] 1 LNS 494 Brief Facts: Ahmad, an expatriate, received a letter of appointmentRead more

    • Legal Update 13 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can the giving of legal advice by an adjudged bankrupt, whose practising certificate has been suspended, amount to practising law in contravention of the Legal Profession Act 1976? Case: DARSHAN SINGH KHAIRA v. ZULKEFLI HASHIMRead more

    • Legal Update 14 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can individual parcel owners enforce rights relating to common property on their own behalf? Case: SYARIKAT EAST COAST & ORS v. MAKNA MUJUR SDN BHD & ORS [2020] 2 MLRA 440 Brief Facts: Syarikat EastRead more

    • Legal Update 15 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      When is the point of time when a debtor is considered to be unable to pay his debts? Case: AFFIN BANK BERHAD V. ABU BAKAR ISMAIL [2020] 2 MLRA 99 Brief Facts: Affin Bank BerhadRead more

    • Legal Update 16 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Whether an article containing allegations of corrupt practices and giving of bribes was defamatory to the owner of an education institution? Case: EAGLE ONE INVESTMENT LTD & ORS V. ASIA PACIFIC HIGHER LEARNING SDN BHDRead more

    Leave a Comment

    Cancel reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    NextPrevious

    JHJ Bulletin

    • S.Jeyaraman: The Magic of Memory
    • Andreas Dorn: Your Unconscious Mind on Change and Money

    Legal Updates

    • Legal Update 22 of 2022
    • Legal Update 21 of 2022
    • Legal Update 20 of 2022
    • Legal Update 19 of 2022
    • Legal Update 18 of 2022
    • Legal Update 17 of 2022
    • Legal Update 16 of 2022

    Legal Cauldron

    • 2
      0

      Legal Cauldron 1 of 2016

      Click here to view & download
    • 2
      0

      Legal Cauldron 2 of 2015

      Click here to view & download
    Copyright 2017 All Rights Reserved Contact Us         Like & Follow Us On:Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
    • About
    • Our People
      • Partners
      • Consultant
      • Associates
    • Practice Areas
    • Publications
      • Legal Updates
      • Legal Cauldron (Temporary suspended)
      • Articles
      • News & Bulletin
    • We Care
    • Careers
    • Contact Us
    Jayadeep Hari & Jamil