Back
FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
CUBIC ELECTRONICS SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
MARS TELECOMMUNICATIONS SDN BHD – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. leave granted for specific questions about forfeiture. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. the court grants leave to appeal on critical questions of contract enforceability. (Para 3) |
| 3. details of the transaction and deposits paid. (Para 4 , 5 , 10 , 19) |
| 4. the terms of the sale and consequences of failure to execute the spa. (Para 6) |
| 5. court's analysis of the deposit's nature and enforceability. (Para 22) |
| 6. arguments presented by both parties regarding forfeiture. (Para 25 , 26) |
[1] On 23 August 2016, this court granted leave to appeal on the following questions:
(i) Where, in a sale and purchase of property, where terms and conditions of the sale and purchase agreement (SPA) have been agreed and a date is fixed for the execution of the SPA, whether any additional deposit paid for the extension of time for completion is equally subject to forfeiture; and
(ii) Whether a purchaser who has agreed and willingly paid an interest in consideration of an extension of time be entitled to claim a refund of the same in the event he defaults in executing the SPA and paying the balance deposit on the due date.
[2] In this judgment unless otherwise stated the parties are referred to as they were at the
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
