SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 MarsdenLR 738

HIGH COURT MALAYA IPOH
SOMY SEETHIAH – Appellant
Versus
INTENSIFTEK (M) SDN BHD – Respondent


Table of Content
1. factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 12)
2. arguments regarding specific performance. (Para 13 , 20 , 21)
3. legal principles on specific performance. (Para 14 , 23 , 24)
4. court’s examination of legal standards. (Para 15 , 18 , 19 , 22 , 26)
5. court observation on contractual obligations. (Para 25)

[1] The Plaintiff wanted to purchase a piece of land in the District of Batang Padang in the State of Perak. He entered into a Sale and Purchase Agreement (S&P) with the Defendant. There was nothing unusual about any of its terms. Having paid the usual 10% of the purchase price he waited for the redemption statement from the Defendant. However it turned out that the amount owing to the Chargee Bank was more than the balance purchase price. The Defendant was not able to come up with the difference between the balance purchase price and the amount it owes the Bank.

Problem

[2] The S&P was dated 16 August 2004. The purchase price of the property was RM56,500.00. The 10% deposit paid was RM5,650.00. The balance purchase price was RM50,850.00. The Plaintiff's loan was RM35,000.00. The Plaintiff deposited with his solicitors as stakeholders

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top