Back
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
ENG SONG ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
KEAT SIONG PROPERTY SDN BHD – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the property and agreements. (Para 1) |
| 2. the existence of a binding contract hinges on intention and offer. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. return of documents and initiation of legal proceedings. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. intent and consideration are critical for contractual enforceability. (Para 13 , 16 , 18 , 21) |
| 5. discussion on existence of accurate contractual intention. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 6. scrutiny of contractual elements and consensus. (Para 20 , 22) |
| 7. specific performance can occur with conditions precedent. (Para 24 , 30 , 33) |
| 8. conditions for specific performance regarding state authority's consent. (Para 25 , 26) |
| 9. validity of specific performance based on past rulings. (Para 31 , 32) |
| 10. clarifications on procedural requirements for judgment. (Para 38) |
[1] This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court at Johor Bahru which had on 26 October 2016 allowed the respondent's Notice of Application for an order for specific performance pursuant to O 81 of the Rules of 2012.
[2] The subject matter of this appeal is a piece of land held under HS(D) 460660 PTD 4036 Mukim Sungai Tiram, Daerah Johor Bahru, Johor (the property). The appellant is the registed owner of t
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
