BEAUFORD BARU SDN BHD V. GOPALA KRISHNAN V K GOPALAN

BEAUFORD BARU SDN BHD V. GOPALA KRISHNAN V K GOPALAN

The SPA (including First and Second Schedules and clause 12) required the corner Lot 260 to include a side porch; plaintiff proved breach; clause 12 entitled plaintiff to a corresponding reduction in purchase price calculated as RM15,000; the RM2,500 payment was for land shortfall leaving an excess of RM718 which must be set off against damages, resulting in judgment for RM14,282 plus interest and costs; estoppel finding against defendant on full settlement claim.

Citation
BEAUFORD BARU SDN BHD V. GOPALA KRISHNAN V K GOPALAN
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Beauford Baru Sdn Bhd; Respondent/plaintiff: Gopala Krishnan a/l V.K. Gopalan
Court
Malaysian court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Procedural Posture
Civil Housing Development / Contract Dispute / Appeal From Magistrate's Court (judgment and Application to Set Aside Damages)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; judgment for plaintiff reduced from RM15,000 to RM14,282; interest and costs awarded; fixed costs ordered
Legal Topics
Sale and Purchase Agreement (statutory Schedule G), Interpretation of Statutory Contract, Breach of Contract Failure to Construct Agreed Feature, Assessment of Damages Under Contractual Clause, Estoppel and Restitution, Burden of Proof
Source Language
en
Housing Law Contract Law Consumer Protection Equity and Restitution Evidence Law Sale and Purchase Agreement (statutory Schedule G) Interpretation of Statutory Contract Breach of Contract Failure to Construct Agreed Feature +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Beauford Baru Sdn Bhd

Appellant/defendant

Gopala Krishnan a/l V.K. Gopalan

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Housing Development / Contract Dispute / Appeal From Magistrate's Court (judgment and Application to Set Aside Damages)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the side porch formed part of the SPA by virtue of the First and Second Schedules and clause 12
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was entitled to RM15,000 as damages and the proper basis for assessment
  3. 3 Whether receipt of RM2,500 amounted to full and final settlement or must be apportioned and offset

Ratio Decidendi

The SPA (including First and Second Schedules and clause 12) required the corner Lot 260 to include a side porch; plaintiff proved breach; clause 12 entitled plaintiff to a corresponding reduction in purchase price calculated as RM15,000; the RM2,500 payment was for land shortfall leaving an excess of RM718 which must be set off against damages, resulting in judgment for RM14,282 plus interest and costs; estoppel finding against defendant on full settlement claim.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; judgment for plaintiff reduced from RM15,000 to RM14,282; interest and costs awarded; fixed costs ordered

Orders

  • Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of RM14,282
  • Interest at 8% per annum from 20 September 2000 to date of realization