Back
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
E TREND REALTY SDN BHD & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
GOLDEN HOPE FROZEN FOOD SDN BHD – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. issues regarding conditionality of agreements (Para 1 , 4) |
| 2. plaintiff's position on agency fees (Para 6 , 24) |
| 3. court's ruling on summary judgment (Para 8 , 25 , 36) |
| 4. background facts of the case (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 16 , 19 , 22) |
| 5. application of res judicata (Para 32 , 35 , 42) |
| 6. determination of spa agreements as conditional (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46) |
Introduction
[1] There are 2 issues in this appeal before me against a Sessions Court order striking out the appellants' / defendants' Counterclaim. The first issue is whether two sale and purchase agreements dated 18 October 2020 ["SPA Agreements"?] are conditional agreements as set out in para 4.2.4 of the Malaysian Estate Agency Standards 2020 ; or they are unconditional agreements as set out in paragraph 4.2.6 of the Malaysian Estate Agency Standards 2020 .
[2] Paragraph 4.2.4 of the Malaysian Estate Agency Standards 2020 reads as follows:
Where the Sale and Purchase agreement or Tenancy / Lease agreement is conditional, the estate agency fees(excluding disbursement) are due when the last of the conditions are met ie when the agreement becomes unconditional.
[Emphasis Added]
[See Enclosure. 3
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
