Back
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
SIK HONG PHOTO SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
CHNG BENG CHOO – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. judgment declared spa null and void. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding time being of essence. (Para 4 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. time stipulated in spa is of essence. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. acquiescence and waiver not established. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. failure of consideration results in fundamental breach. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 6. contract void due to uncertainty. (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
Appeal
[1] After a full trial, the learned judicial commissioner gave judgment for the respondent ("the plaintiff"), declaring that the sale and purchase agreement ("the SPA") executed between the plaintiff and the appellant, a company incorporated under the Companies Act 1965 ("the defendant") on 31 October 1980 was null and void. There were also consequential orders for the return of property to the plaintiff and an account for rentals commencing 31 December 1980.
[2] On appeal, the High Court judgment was affirmed by us.
[3] We now provide our grounds.
Defence
[4] In essence, the defendant's amended defence is that:
(1) Madam Ng Hua (Madam Ng) had consented to and/or, by acquiescence, agreed that the transfer of fully paid 430 shares ("the shares") to
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
