Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Pro

PROFORMA SALE FORM DURING MOVEMENT CONTROL ORDER

“I have signed a proforma sale form which requires a sale and purchase agreement to be prepared within 21 working days.”

“What happened if I am unable to comply with the 21 working days period as no law firm is operating during this period.”

Most proforma sale form or booking form would have a term which requires a sale and purchase agreement (“SPA”) to be prepared within 21 “working days”.

A working day normally means a calendar day which is the day as distinguished from a holiday. However, the recently announced nationwide Restriction of Movement Order (“MCO”) is not holiday. It merely, among others, restricts movement and assembly nationwide.

However, the 21 working days will be extended for the entire duration of the MCO as law firms were reproached by the Bar Council to remain open for business. The working day as contemplated in the booking form is therefore vitiated by the fact that lawyers are unable to access to their physical office for the purpose of retrieving files, documents and using the facilities of their office to prepare the SPA. Therefore, the period under MCO could not be considered “working days”.

“Can I terminate the agreement as evidenced in the proforma sale form or booking form by relying on the doctrine of frustration?”

Section 57 of the Contracts Act 1950 (“CA 1950”) (which embodies the doctrine of frustration) provides that

“(a) contract to do an act which, after the contract is made, becomes impossible, or by reason of some event which the promisor could not prevent,unlawful, becomes void when the act becomes impossible or unlawful.” An agreement to do an act impossible in itself is void.”

However, one of the 3 important elements of frustration is that the alleged frustrating event “must be such that renders it radically different from that which was undertaken by the contract”.

A proforma sale form or booking form sets out the salient term of a sale and purchase i.e. the identity of the parties, the description of the property and the price. The requirement of a SPA to be signed is mere formality.

Hence, the MCO which merely affects the formality of having to sign the SPA within 21 days does not radically alters the salient terms of the sale and purchase i.e. i.e. the identity of the parties, the description of the property and the price. Therefore, doctrine of frustration does not apply.

Recent Post

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.

Read More »

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.

Read More »

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.

Read More »

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.

Read More »

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.

Read More »
en_USEN
× Contact Us