Ramis a/l Subramaniam 1. Ewe Chuan Peng 2. Saw Ghee Hin

Ramis a/l Subramaniam 1. Ewe Chuan Peng 2. Saw Ghee Hin

The High Court held the plaintiff breached the S&P and failed to prove the forfeiture was unreasonable or to call the surveyor; agents who showed the wrong land were not proved to be appointed by defendants so misrepresentation could not be imputed to them; applying section 75 and the Federal Court authority in Cubic Electronics the deposit is forfeitable and plaintiff's claim for return of RM32,445 is dismissed and the Sessions Court judgment reversed.

Citation
AB - 12BNCVC - 1 - 02/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Defendant/appellant: Ewe Chuan Peng; Defendant/appellant: Saw Ghee Hin; Plaintiff/respondent: Ramis A/L Subramaniam
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
15 July 2020
Case Number
AB - 12BNCVC - 1 - 02/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Sessions Court / Final Judgment on Appeal (high Court)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Sessions Court judgment reversed; plaintiff's claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Deposit Forfeiture, Agency, Section 75 Contracts Act 1950, Section 19(1) Contracts Act 1950, Adverse Inference Under Evidence Act
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Evidence Property Law Misrepresentation Deposit Forfeiture Agency Section 75 Contracts Act 1950 Section 19(1) Contracts Act 1950 +1 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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ewe Chuan Peng

Defendant/appellant

Saw Ghee Hin

Defendant/appellant

Ramis A/L Subramaniam

Plaintiff/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Sessions Court / Final Judgment on Appeal (high Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff was entitled to cancel the Sale & Purchase agreement for misrepresentation by agents and recover deposit
  2. 2 Whether the deposit paid could be forfeited by defendants under clause in S&P and section 75 Contracts Act 1950
  3. 3 Whether agents were appointed by defendants such that misrepresentation can be imputed to them

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held the plaintiff breached the S&P and failed to prove the forfeiture was unreasonable or to call the surveyor; agents who showed the wrong land were not proved to be appointed by defendants so misrepresentation could not be imputed to them; applying section 75 and the Federal Court authority in Cubic Electronics the deposit is forfeitable and plaintiff's claim for return of RM32,445 is dismissed and the Sessions Court judgment reversed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Sessions Court judgment reversed; plaintiff's claim dismissed

Orders

  • Plaintiff's claim for return of deposit of RM32,445 dismissed
  • Deposit forfeited to defendants