Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

WHETHER PURCHASER ENTITLED TO CLAIM LIQUIDATED ASCERTAINED DAMAGES (LAD)

Bob has signed a contract with Developer Y to buy a condominium for RM 250,000. Bob was supposed to get vacant possession on October 23, 2021, according to the SPA. Unfortunately, developer Y walked away from the project. Bob also contributed RM60,000 to the purchase price and then drafted a letter requesting that the property’s development be finished and vacant possession be handed over by December 12, 2021. Developer Y has failed to do so again. Bob then filed a case against developer Y, seeking a ruling that the defendant had broken the provisions of the SPA, as well as RM60,000 in restitution and liquidated ascertained damages (LAD).

Q: Is there any statutory or contractual period for Bob to terminate his contract?

A: No. This is because as long as the breach of contract continues, Bob retains the right to terminate the SPA.

Q: Does Bob have to give notice of the claim for LAD?

A: No. Bob is not required to give any notice of an intention to file a claim for LAD under Schedule H. However, under section 56(3) of the Contract Act 1950, Bob is only required to give notice of his claim for LAD if he have indicated to the developer when the SPA became voidable or if Bob is ready to accept delivery of vacant possession at a later date.

Q: Developer Y held that LAD would only be claimable if Bob had paid the purchase price in full. Is this legal?

A: No, Bob does not have to pay in full to be eligible for LAD benefits. Because the house was not finished, the purchase price of an abandoned project would not have been paid in full.

Q: When can Bob claim for LAD?

A: Bob is entitled to claim for LAD immediately after the expiry of the contractual deadline for the defendant to hand over vacant possession of the property which is 23 October 2021.

Recent Post

NAVIGATION AND SHIPPING LAW – COLLISION REGULATIONS – COLLISION AT SEA – A WAKE-UP CALL FOR ADHERING TO NAVIGATION RULES

The collision between the FMG Sydney and MSC Apollo highlights the critical importance of adhering to established navigation rules. Deviations, delayed actions, and reliance on radio communications instead of clear, early maneuvers can lead to disastrous outcomes. This case serves as a stark reminder for mariners: follow the rules, act decisively, and prioritize safety above assumptions.

Read More »

SHIPPING AND ADMIRALTY IN REM – A SINKING ASSET – COURT ORDERS SALE OF ARRESTED VESSEL TO PRESERVE CLAIM SECURITY

In a landmark admiralty decision, the High Court ordered the pendente lite sale of the arrested vessel Shi Pu 1, emphasizing the principle of preserving claim security over the defendant’s financial incapacity. The court ruled that the vessel, deemed a “wasting asset,” could not remain under arrest indefinitely without proper maintenance or security. This case reinforces the necessity for shipowners to manage arrested assets proactively to prevent significant financial and legal repercussions.

Read More »

EMPLOYMENT LAW – IS DIRECTOR A DIRECTOR OR EMPLOYEE? UNPACKING DUAL ROLES IN EMPLOYMENT LAW

The Court of Appeal clarified the dual roles of directors as both shareholders and employees, affirming that executive directors can qualify as “workmen” under the Industrial Relations Act 1967. The decision emphasizes that removal as a director does not equate to lawful dismissal as an employee unless due process is followed. This case highlights the importance of distinguishing shareholder rights from employment protections, ensuring companies navigate such disputes with clarity and fairness.

Read More »

COMMERCIAL CONTRACT – FORCE MAJEURE OR JUST EXCUSES? LESSONS FROM LITASCO V DER MOND OIL [2024] 2 LLOYD’S REP 593

The recent decision in Litasco SA v Der Mond Oil and Gas Africa SA [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 593 highlights the strict thresholds required to invoke defences such as force majeure and trade sanctions in commercial disputes. The English Commercial Court dismissed claims of misrepresentation and found that banking restrictions and sanctions did not excuse payment obligations under the crude oil contract. This judgment reinforces the importance of precise contractual drafting and credible evidence in defending against payment claims, serving as a cautionary tale for businesses navigating international trade and legal obligations.

Read More »

SHIPPING – LETTER OF CREDIT – LESSONS FROM UNICREDIT’S FRAUD CLAIM AGAINST GLENCORE

The Singapore Court of Appeal’s decision in Unicredit Bank AG v Glencore Singapore Pte Ltd [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 624 reaffirms the principle of autonomy in letters of credit and highlights the high evidentiary threshold for invoking the fraud exception. Unicredit’s claim of deceit was dismissed as the court found no evidence of false representations by Glencore, emphasizing that banks deal with documents, not underlying transactions. This case serves as a critical reminder for international trade practitioners to prioritize clear documentation and robust due diligence to mitigate risks in financial transactions.

Read More »

LAND LAW – PROPERTY SOLD TWICE: OWNERSHIP NOT TRANSFERRED IN FIRST SALE

This legal update examines the Court of Appeal’s decision in Malayan Banking Bhd v Mohd Affandi bin Ahmad & Anor [2024] 1 MLJ 1, which reaffirmed the binding nature of valid Sale and Purchase Agreements (SPAs) and the establishment of constructive trust. The court dismissed claims of deferred indefeasibility by subsequent purchasers and a chargee bank, emphasizing the critical importance of due diligence in property transactions. The decision serves as a cautionary tale for financial institutions and vendors, reinforcing the need for meticulous compliance with legal and equitable obligations.

Read More »
en_USEN
× Contact Us