PLAINTIFF'S CASE

The defendant is the registered owner of all that land known as EMR 762, Lot No. 1748 Mukim of Perak (the said land). The plaintiff contends that by a letter dated 6.3.97 and signed by both parties, the defendant agreed to sell the said land to the plaintiff for a consideration of RM220,000.00. The plaintiff paid a deposit of 10% as was required by the said letter amounting to RM22,000.00. It was inter alia agreed that a formal sale and purchase agreement was to be drawn up by the plaintiff's solicitors pending a search to be done on the said land. The plaintiff's solicitors then forwarded a first draft to the defendant for her approval.

By a letter dated 17.4.97 the defendant wrote to the plaintiff's solicitors repudiating the sale of the said land to the plaintiff and at the same time making out a cheque for the sum of RM22,000.00, thus returning the 10% deposit which she had earlier accepted. The plaintiff's solicitors rejected the said repudiation and returned the said cheque to the defendant. The plaintiff then lodged a private caveat on the said land to protect his interest.

Subsequently through new solicitors the plaintiff yet again wrote to the defendant reminding her of the agreement to sell the said land and of her acceptance of the plaintiff's deposit. By her personal letter to the plaintiff's solicitors, the defendant yet again stated that she did not agree to the terms and conditions as stated in the said letter and again returned the cheque. The plaintiff's solicitors too, returned the said cheque.

THE PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM

The plaintiff therefore claimed:

"1) a declaration that the letter to sell dated 6th March 1997 is valid and subsisting;

2) an order for specific performance that the Defendant do enter into a formal sale and purchase agreement and complete the same pursuant to the terms of the letter dated 6th March 1997;

3) damages suffered to be assessed;

4) interest at the rate of 8% from this date to date of payment;

5) costs;

6) any further or other relief as the Honourable Court deems fit."

CASE FOR THE DEFENDANT

The defendant contended that there was no concluded agreement between the parties. Alternatively she pleaded that if there was an agreement it was subject to several conditions precedent before a formal written agreement could be exchanged between them. The defendant contended that the letter dated 6.3.97 which she executed was due to fraudulent misrepresentation made by the plaintiff and his witness.

She averred that she was under the influence of liquor when she signed the said letter in the Lake Club when it was dark and when she did not have her spectacles on. She argued that since the plaintiff had agreed that the deposit of RM22,000.00 was paid subject to contract, she was therefore entitled to refund the money. She also maintained that the parties had agreed that a valuation would be done on the said land and that the plaintiff had agreed to pay the true price of the land upon valuation being done. She also maintained that a copy of the letter dated 6.3.97 was never given to her on the day she signed it. Whilst the plaintiff had all along informed her that the property was for his own use she was surprised that the draft agreement showed that the purchaser of the said land was one "Countryside Homestead Sdn Bhd" (Homestead). The defendant contended she would rely on section 19 of the Contracts Act 1950 (the Act), which would render an agreement (if any) voidable at the option of the party whose consent to the agreement was obtained by coercion, fraud or misrepresentation.

FINDINGS OF THE COURT

The plaintiff testified that on 14.2.97, whilst he was with two friends, namely Raymond Lim (Lim) and Ho Hon Hing (Ho), he invited the defendant to join him for drinks since she was alone. When Ho mentioned he was working in Temerloh the defendant then said that she had a piece of land in Temerloh which she wished to sell and asked them to find a buyer for her. The plaintiff t