Parties in a contractual agreement are bound by their obligations, and unjust enrichment occurs when one party benefits at another's expense without compensation.

Table of Content
1. contractual obligations and terms influence the rights of the parties. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
2. failure to establish claims of misrepresentation requires dismissing counterclaims. (Para 10 , 12 , 15)
3. determination of unjust enrichment and related damages. (Para 11)

(i) The sale of the said property is subject to the approval of the relevant authority;

(ii) The payment of 3% as earnest deposit ('the said earnest deposit') and the balance 7% must be paid when the Sale and Purchase Agreement is signed to complete the initial deposit.

(iii) The Sale and Purchase Agreement must be signed within 14 days of obtaining the state authority's approval;

(iv) The balance purchase price must be paid within three (3) months and an addition of one (1) month.

(v) After the payment of the 10% deposit, the Defendant will be given vacant possession of the said property.

(7) The terms were then further negotiated between the parties wherein the Defendant had paid the Plaintiff the 3% earnest deposit sum of RM720,000.00.

(8) The Plaintiff then via a letter dated 01 March 2010 to the Defendant confirmed the receipt of the cheque for RM720,000.00 being the earnest deposit and further stated that the Defendant would be given vacant possession of the said property pending the execution of the Sale and Purchase Agreement. The Plaintiff had also stated that all utilities and rates were to be borne by the Defendant from the date when vacant possession is given.

(9) The Defendant took vacant possession of the said property on 01 March 2010.

(10) However, by a letter dated 26 January 2011, the Plaintiff's new solicitors, Messrs A. Farah Zabir & Partners informed the Defendant that the sale and purchase of the said property had stalled and proposed the following terms:

(i) The sale is only for the said property and does not include the said option (to purchase the remaining 6.2 acres of the said land);

(ii) The purchase price of the said property be reduced to RM17,000,000.00 from RM24,000,000.00;

(iii) Since the Defendant had occupied the said property without payment of any rental from 2010, it shall be liable to pay quit rent and assessment on the said property; and

(iv) The Defendant's solicitors are to forward a draft Sale and Purchase Agreement within three (3) weeks from the date of acceptance of the revised offer.

(11) Thereafter, pursuant to several discussions between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Plaintiff vide their solicitors' letter dated 21 June 2011 proposed further that the purchase price of the said property be reduced to RM15,500,000.00 for four (4) acres of the said land and rental will be imposed upon the execution of the Sale and Purchase Agreement.

(12) Due to issues between the Plaintiff and PNSB, the Plaintiff vide their solicitors informed the Defendant's solicitors that PNSB had withdrawn the offer to sell the remaining 6.2 acres of the said land and had requested further instructions from the Defendant.

(13) The Plaintiff had then failed to receive any response from the Defendant and vide their solicitors' letter dated 12 September 2012 gave notice to the Defendant that the rental for the said property will be imposed retrospectively for the Defendant's occupation on the said property commencing April 2012.

(14) As the Defendant had been occupying the said property without any payment of rental and/or consideration for more than six (6) years, the Defendant has been unjustly enriched and has benefited from occupying the said property.

(15) On 01 November 2016, the Plaintiff filed this writ of summons and statement of claim against the Defendant and the latter then filed its counter claim against the Plaintiff.

Agreed Facts

(1) The Plaintiff is a limited liability company.

(2) The Plaintiff was wound-up by the High Court at Shah Alam on 01 March 2013 pursuant to a petition filed by PSNB Properties Sdn Bhd vide Petition No. 28-360-09/2012 where the Official Receiver was appointed as the liquidator for the Plaintiff.

(3) The Defendan

Click Here to Read the rest of this document