Back
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
MWE PROPERTIES SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
SAW LIP KEAN – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claims regarding purchase contract and refunds. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. details of transactions and respondent's payment difficulties. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. arguments raised by both parties concerning the binding nature of the agreement. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. court's analysis on the existence of a binding contract. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 5. examination of evidence and respondent's claims of impossibility. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 6. court's stance on deposits and contractual obligations. (Para 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 7. decision correlating to the binding nature of the contract. (Para 44) |
| 8. conclusions drawn by the court regarding refunds and contract obligations. (Para 45) |
[1] The respondent's claim against the appellant in the present case is for the refund of RM742,213.46 being deposits and part payments made by the respondent to the appellant for the purchase of four units of shoplots, being Lot 48, Lot 49, Lot 50 and Lot 51 in Sri Bintang Height, Segambut, Kuala Lumpur. The appellant was the developer and vendor of the said shoplots and the respondent wa
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
