Back
Next 
2013 MarsdenLR 2012
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
INCH KENNETH KAJANG RUBBER PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY – Appellant
Versus
TOR PENG SIE – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: W-02-1425-2010]
Petitioner Advocates:Yee Mei Ken ,Respondent Advocate: Ramdas Tikamdas
An agent who is the effective cause of a transaction is entitled to commission, even if the sale price is lower than expected or only part of the property is sold.
Headnote:(A) Contracts Act 1950 - Section 71 - Evidence Act 1950 - Section 92 - Agency Relationship - A public listed company, the appellant, contested a claim by a registered real estate agent for professional fees regarding the sale of its estate after the agent introduced a buyer. The court determined that the agent was the effective cause of the subsequent sale and thus entitled to fees. The trial judge had originally limited the fees to RM500,000, but the appellate court found this unjustified, asserting that insufficient grounds existed to restrict the payment based on purported conditions not supported by evidence. (Paras 24, 18, 26, 30).
Findings of Court:
The agent was not in breach of contract and fulfilled her obligations by introducing the buyer, thereby rendering her entitled to the full fees as claimed.
Issues: The court addressed whether the agent breached agreement terms regarding the minimum price and full estate sale, and the appropriateness of the fees awarded.
Ratio Decidendi: The claim for commission was valid; it was ruled that the agent's introduction of the purchaser satisfied the contract terms, and the conditions raised by the appellant were not substantiated.
Result: The appellant's appeal was dismissed, and the respondent's cross-appeal was allowed, awarding full payment of professional fees.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's findings on conditions of fee entitlement. (Para 22) |
[22] In limiting the judgment sum to RM500,000 the learned judge apparently awarded the sum on a quantum merit basis as it was noted by the learned judge that not the whole of Dunedin Estate was sold and that the appellant through DW1 had to do a substantial amount of ground work to complete the sale and that too at a reduced sale price.
