PROPERTY LAW – LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF SALE AND PURCHASE AGREEMENT BREACHES AND THE RIGHT TO OFFSET IN MALAYSIAN PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS

Scenario Summary

X, a property developer, and Y entered into a sale and purchase agreement (SPA) on 2.1.2016 for a property valued at RM500,000, with the promise of delivering vacant possession by 1.1.2018. According to the SPA, Y was to pay the purchase price in instalments as outlined in the Third Schedule. However, Y failed to pay the final 20% of the purchase price, leading X to terminate the SPA due to breach of contract.

The legal questions arising are:

i. Whether X is responsible for the delay in delivering vacant possession as per the SPA and if the liquidated ascertained damages (LAD) significantly exceed the unpaid 20% of the purchase price, negating X’s right to demand the outstanding balance.

ii. Whether Y has the right to offset the 20% unpaid portion of the purchase price against the LAD, thereby nullifying the obligation to pay the remaining balance.
Applicable Legal Principles
– The right to offset, as per section 526 of the Companies Act 2016, is permissible only where there are mutual credits between the parties, and these credits are due.

– In scenarios where a company is not undergoing liquidation, the issue of favoring certain creditors over others does not apply. The buyer is entitled to offset the LAD against the remaining purchase price if the LAD exceeds this outstanding balance.

– In the event of company liquidation, the liquidator should collect the outstanding purchase price to benefit the Housing Development Account, ensuring equitable treatment without giving undue preference to any party. Any remaining funds in this account should be proportionately distributed among purchasers entitled to LAD for delayed delivery upon the conclusion of the liquidation process.
Relevant Case Law
- Sazean Development Sdn Bhd v Maha Pesona Sdn Bhd [2023] MLJU 544
- Techno Asia Holdings Bhd v Mount Austin Properties Sdn Bhd [2007] 4 MLJ 576
- Sentul Raya Sdn Bhd v Hariram Jayaram & Ors [2008] 4 CLJ 618
- Foo Ah Kow v Yeap Poh Lam [2016] 6 CLJ 686

Sorotan Terkini

STRATA MANAGEMENT – MANAGEMENT FEE SHOWDOWN – RESIDENTIAL VS. COMMERCIAL – WHO’S PAYING FOR THE EXTRAS?

In a landmark decision in Aikbee Timbers Sdn Bhd & Anor v Yii Sing Chiu & Anor and another appeal [2024] 1 MLJ 94 , the Court of Appeal clarified the rules on maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions in mixed strata developments. Developers and management corporations can impose different rates based on the distinct purposes of residential and commercial parcels. The judgment emphasizes fairness, ensuring residential owners bear the costs of exclusive facilities like pools and gyms, while commercial owners aren’t subsidizing amenities they don’t use. This ruling highlights the importance of transparency in budgeting and equitable cost-sharing in mixed-use properties.

16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

ILELGAL MONEYLENDERS – WHEN LOANS CROSS THE LINE: KEY LESSONS FROM SHIM VUI GEH V DAYANG MASTURAH ON ILLEGAL MONEYLENDING AND PROPERTY SECURITY

Can a simple loan lead to a legal battle over property ownership? This case reveals how improper security arrangements and high-interest rates can turn financial help into a courtroom showdown, highlighting the critical importance of understanding loan agreements and compliance with the law.

16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

ILLEGALITY OF UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS’ CLAIM – FINDER’S FEES AND ILLEGALITY: COURT DRAWS THE LINE ON UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS

In a pivotal ruling, the Court of Appeal clarified that finder’s fee agreements are not automatically void under the Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers Act 1981. The Court emphasized that illegality must be specifically pleaded and supported by evidence, and isolated transactions do not trigger the Act’s prohibition. This decision highlights the importance of precise pleadings and a clear understanding of the law’s scope.

16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

COMPANIES ACT – OPPRESSION – DRAWING THE LINE: FEDERAL COURT DEFINES OPPRESSION VS. CORPORATE HARMS

In a decisive ruling, the Federal Court clarified the boundaries between personal shareholder oppression and corporate harm, overturning the Court of Appeal’s findings. The Court held that claims tied to the wrongful transfer of trademarks belonged to the company, not the individual shareholder, reaffirming that corporate harm must be addressed through a derivative action rather than an oppression claim.

16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

COMPANIES LAW – WHEN DIRECTORS BETRAY: COURT CONDEMNS BREACH OF TRUST AND CORPORATE MISCONDUCT

In a stark reminder of the consequences of corporate betrayal, the court found that the directors had systematically dismantled their own company to benefit a competing entity they controlled. By breaching their fiduciary duties, conspiring to harm the business, and unjustly enriching themselves, the defendants were held accountable through significant compensatory and exemplary damages, reaffirming the critical importance of trust and integrity in corporate governance.

16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

JURISDICTION – CHOOSING THE RIGHT COURT: THE SEA JUSTICE CASE HIGHLIGHTS WHERE MARITIME DISPUTES SHOULD BE HEARD

In The Sea Justice cases [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 383 and [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 429, the Singapore courts tackled a key question: which country should handle a maritime dispute when incidents span international waters? After examining the location of the collision, existing limitation funds in China, and witness availability, the courts concluded that China was the more appropriate forum. This ruling highlights that courts will often defer to the jurisdiction with the closest ties to the incident, ensuring efficient and fair handling of cross-border maritime disputes. This approach is also relevant in Malaysia, where similar principles apply.

17 November ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

MY

× Hubungi Kami