Fortune Realty Pte Ltd v Lim Sai Kang and Another

Parties

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons (os 601428/2001) / High Court Judgment (final)

Legal Issues

1. 1 Whether the basement car park accessory lot is included in the 'floor area' or 'area of the building unit' for the purposes of the sale agreement
2. 2 Whether clause 19(2)/(3) entitles the purchasers to an adjustment of the purchase price
3. 3 Whether extraneous guidelines or pre-contractual materials can be used to construe the contractual description

Ratio Decidendi

The contract and the annexed plans define the 'building unit' and 'floor area'; the annexed plans did not include the basement car park lot as part of unit 33, the description in the First Schedule was ambiguous, and contra proferentem applies against the vendor-drafter. Administrative guidelines are not part of the contract. Therefore the car park accessory lot is not included in the 150 sqm 'floor area' of unit 33 and there is a shortfall entitling the purchasers to adjustment under clause 19.

Court Disposition

Judgment for defendants (purchasers). Court holds there is a shortfall in area of unit 33 and the purchasers are entitled to adjustment under clause 19; plaintiffs to pay defendants' costs.

Orders

• Held that the 150 square metre floor area did not include the basement car park accessory lot and that there was a shortfall in the area of Unit 33
• Defendants entitled to adjustment of purchase price in accordance with clause 19 of the sale and purchase agreement