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

INDUSTRIAL LAW – NAVIGATING THE LEGALITIES OF RETRENCHMENT

The dismissal of X by Company ABC, citing economic downturns, presents a compelling case on the complexities of employment termination and retrenchment legality. X contested his redundancy, claiming his role in property management and services was unaffected by the property development market’s challenges. This case probes into the legitimacy of retrenchment under economic duress and the employer’s duty to act in good faith, as guided by Section 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967. The burden rests on Company ABC to prove the necessity and genuineness of X’s redundancy, with failure to do so possibly leading to a verdict of unjustified termination. This scenario underscores the critical importance of evidence and intention in retrenchment cases, as reflected in precedents like Akilan a/l Subramanian v. Prima Awam (M) Sdn Bhd.

Read More »

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

In the realm of Malaysian property transactions, the intricacies of Sale and Purchase Agreements (SPAs) and the enforcement of Liquidated Ascertained Damages (LAD) play pivotal roles in safeguarding the interests of both developers and purchasers. This article delves into the legal framework governing the rights and obligations of parties involved in property transactions, particularly focusing on the consequences of contractual breaches and the conditions under which a purchaser can exercise the right to offset against LAD. Through the examination of relevant case law and statutory provisions, we illuminate the legal pathways available for resolving disputes arising from the failure to adhere to the terms of SPAs, thereby offering insights into the equitable administration of justice in the context of Malaysian property law.

Read More »

WINDING-UP – OFFICIAL RECEIVER AND LIQUIDATOR (“ORL”)

In cases of compulsory winding up, the court would appoint a liquidator under s.478 of the Companies Act 2016 (“CA 2016”) to expeditiously recover and realise the assets of the wound-up company for the distribution of dividends to creditors and administer any outstanding matters involving………..

Read More »

JUDICIAL REVIEW – PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS AND LOCUS STANDI

This excerpt illuminates the foundational principles of judicial review as outlined in Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012. It highlights the criteria for challenging public decisions on grounds of illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety. Central to the discussion is the question of timing in judicial review applications, particularly in cases of procedural unfairness. The practical scenario underscores the significance of a “decision” by the relevant authority as a prerequisite for locus standi, drawing insights from the case of Hisham bin Halim v Maya bt Ahmad Fuad & Ors [2023] 12 MLJ 714.

Read More »

CONTRACT LAW – CONTRACTUAL INTERPRETATION REMEDIES UNVEILED: DECIPHERING CONTRACTUAL CLAUSES AND LEGAL BALANCE

This legal updates explore the principles governing the interpretation of agreements, emphasizing the importance of clarity and unambiguity in contractual terms. It delves into a key issue involving restrictions on remedies for breach of contract, shedding light on the court’s commitment to upholding plain meanings. The illustrative scenario involving shareholders X and Y dissects a pertinent clause, showcasing the delicate balance between restricting remedies and ensuring fairness in legal proceedings.

Read More »
en_USEnglish
× How can I help you?