This is a claim by the plaintiff for damages for breach of contract, and for delivery of Issue Document of Title and vacant possession in respect of a piece of land measuring in area 1,680 sq. ft. known as Lot No. 25602 together with a permanent building described as a three-storey shophouse plus mezzanine floor in phase 5 for SEA Park, Petaling Jaya, Kuala Lumpur (hereinafter referred to as "the said property") and other consequential loss.

Briefly, the facts of the case are as follows. On January 2, 1974 by a written agreement AB1 the plaintiff agreed to purchase from the defendant the said property at the purchase price of $175,000. Under the said agreement the defendant was to complete the said building on the said property within a period of 18 months from the date of the said agreement, i.e. on or before July 1, 1975. In the meantime the plaintiff continued to pay the purchase price progressively and there was a balance of 10% being the last payment due and payable by her to the defendant upon the issue of the Certificate of Fitness. It is a fact that the said building was not completed within the period stipulated in the agreement. It is a term of the said agreement that the defendant should pay liquidated damages at the rate of 8% per annum on the purchase price for any delay in the completion of the said building up to the date of actual completion and delivery of possession.

The following sequence of events ensued. By a letter dated June 16, 1977 AB28 the defendant wrote to the plaintiff notifying her that the said building has been completed and the Certificate of Fitness was ready for collection. The defendant demanded from the plaintiff payment of the balance amounting to $17,500 being the final instalment of the purchase price and $407.20 being the quit rent for a period of 4 years.

Upon receipt of the abovementioned letter, the plaintiff replied as in AB26 and pointed out to the defendant that under Clause 17 of the Purchase Agreement the building was to be completed within 18 months from the date thereof and yet the said building was only completed on June 16, 1977. Further, the plaintiff enquired whether the defendant had obtained any extension of time from the Controller of Housing and alleged that in the event that no extension was given by the Controller she was entitled to liquidated damages at 8% per annum on the purchase price which according to her calculation amounted to $27,826.66, i.e. from July 2, 1975 to June 1, 1977.

The plaintiff further stated in the said letter that the balance of $17,907.20 which was payable by her being the final balance of the purchase price was far below the amount which she would be entitled as liquidated damages. Therefore she suggested the defendant should hand over the keys together with the payment of $9,919.46. The defendant replied on August 15, 1977 AB28 and requested the plaintiff to call at the office to discuss the matter. In the meantime, on August 13, 1977 the plaintiff's solicitors wrote to the defendant AB27 and informed the defendant that their client was entitled to set off against the balance of the purchase price liquidated damages due to the plaintiff under the said Purchase Agreement and demanded the defendant to hand over the key together with payment of $9,919.46.

Subsequently, the defendants instructed their solicitors who by a letter dated September 23, 1977 AB34 inter alia, stated as follows: —

"2. Our client instructs us that the payment of the balance of the purchase price to our client and the delivery of the keys and premises by our client and your client's claim for damages for alleged delay are two entirely separate issues. We are instructed to give you notice, which we hereby do, that if your client wishes to obtain delivery of the keys to the premises, she must immediately pay all outstanding sums to our client. If she does not do so, she will be held fully responsible for any delay in the delivery of the keys to her.

3.