TAN CHEE WAH LWN SRI DAMANSARA SDN BHD

TAN CHEE WAH LWN SRI DAMANSARA SDN BHD

The court held the developer's letter dated 26 May 2000 validly varied the Sale & Purchase Agreement to require vacant possession within 15 months; contracting out of the statutory period was permissible where it benefited the weaker party (the purchaser); the respondent could not elect to disavow the binding variation on the basis of not having obtained prior regulatory approval; accordingly the appellant's position was upheld and the appeal allowed.

Citation
TAN CHEE WAH LWN SRI DAMANSARA SDN BHD
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Tan Chee Wah; Respondent / Defendant: Sri Damansara Sdn Bhd
Court
Malaysian court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Vacant Possession, Liquidated Damages, Contracting Out, Statutory Compliance, Representations, Enforceability
Source Language
en
Contract Law Housing Law Consumer Protection Administrative Law Vacant Possession Liquidated Damages Contracting Out Statutory Compliance +2 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tan Chee Wah

Appellant / Plaintiff

Sri Damansara Sdn Bhd

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a developer's letter can validly vary a sale and purchase agreement to shorten vacant possession period
  2. 2 Whether the letter was ineffective for lacking prior approval of the Controller of Housing under the Housing Developers Act and Regulations
  3. 3 Whether the purchaser proved entitlement to liquidated damages for delay

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the developer's letter dated 26 May 2000 validly varied the Sale & Purchase Agreement to require vacant possession within 15 months; contracting out of the statutory period was permissible where it benefited the weaker party (the purchaser); the respondent could not elect to disavow the binding variation on the basis of not having obtained prior regulatory approval; accordingly the appellant's position was upheld and the appeal allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs in this Court and in the Sessions Court.