SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



MAJORITY DECISION

1. In this appeal before us, the appellant, Silver Concept Sdn Bhd, had partially appealed against the low quantum of damages awarded in the High Court below. The respondent, Brisdale Rasa Development Sdn Bhd had cross-appealed to this Court to reverse the findings of liability, award of damages and costs that was made in favour of the appellant by the High Court on 22.7.2000. The judgment of the High Court was reported in [2001] 1 AMR 1087. We had on 5.5.2005 allowed the appellant's appeal with costs and dismissed the respondent's cross-appeal, also with costs. We now give our reasons for doing so.

Brief Facts

2. It is necessary for us to state the brief facts of this appeal. The appellant is a landowner. The respondent is a property developer.

The parties entered into a sale and purchase agreement on 31.3.1997 whereby the appellant agreed to sell 397.2 acres of land (the said land) and the respondent agreed to purchase the said land for a total purchase price of RM 75,468,000 upon the terms and conditions contained in the agreement.

3. The 10% deposit of RM 7,546,000 was paid by the respondent to the appellant upon the execution of the agreement. On 30.6.1997 th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top