AIM EDITION SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT 278567-V) AMBANK (M) BERHAD (NO. SYARIKAT: 8515-D)

AIM EDITION SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT 278567-V) AMBANK (M) BERHAD (NO. SYARIKAT: 8515-D)

The Court held there was a concluded contract between the appellant and the chargee bank because the order for sale and conditions of sale constitute the sale agreement in a forced sale; the Proclamation of Sale expressly stated the land area (94.76 ha) which was an express contractual term; unchallenged evidence established a shortfall of 12.7655 ha and quantified loss; Clause 23 and the 'as‑is‑where‑is' principle and caveat emptor did not bar relief where there was an express contractual representation and statutory protection under NLC s269(3); appellant entitled to damages computed pro rata and to costs.

Citation
B-02(NCVC)(W)-2612-12/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: AIM EDITION SDN BHD; Respondent/defendant: AMBANK (M) BERHAD
Court
NCVC
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
21 January 2020
Case Number
B-02(NCVC)(W)-2612-12/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (contract/land) / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal (final Appellate Determination)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment of 22 November 2018 set aside; appellant entitled to judgment as prayed in the Statement of Claim
Legal Topics
Judicial Sale, Forced Sale Under National Land Code, Auction Sale Conditions, Representation of Title Particulars, Caveat Emptor, As‑is‑where‑is, Estoppel by Conduct, Damages Quantification
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Property Law Land Law Civil Procedure Evidence Judicial Sale Forced Sale Under National Land Code Auction Sale Conditions +5 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AIM EDITION SDN BHD

Appellant/plaintiff

AMBANK (M) BERHAD

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (contract/land) / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal (final Appellate Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a contract existed between successful bidder and chargee bank following a judicial sale by order for sale
  2. 2 Whether the chargee bank is liable to compensate purchaser for shortfall in land area under the Proclamation of Sale and National Land Code
  3. 3 Whether the Proclamation of Sale constituted an express representation of land area and whether 'as is where is' or caveat emptor precluded relief

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held there was a concluded contract between the appellant and the chargee bank because the order for sale and conditions of sale constitute the sale agreement in a forced sale; the Proclamation of Sale expressly stated the land area (94.76 ha) which was an express contractual term; unchallenged evidence established a shortfall of 12.7655 ha and quantified loss; Clause 23 and the 'as‑is‑where‑is' principle and caveat emptor did not bar relief where there was an express contractual representation and statutory protection under NLC s269(3); appellant entitled to damages computed pro rata and to costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment of 22 November 2018 set aside; appellant entitled to judgment as prayed in the Statement of Claim

Orders

  • Set aside the High Court order dated 22 November 2018
  • Appeal allowed and appellant awarded damages as claimed for shortfall in land area (as per Statement of Claim)