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

NEGLIGENCE – HOTEL LIABILITY: UNVEILING THE LEGAL RISKS IN NEGLIGENCE AND VICARIOUS LIABILITY CASES

In the hospitality industry, the duty of care owed by hotels to their guests is paramount. This legal update explores a scenario where a hotel’s failure to safeguard access to guest rooms leads to tragic consequences. It examines the potential negligence claim against a hotel employee and the broader implications of vicarious liability for the hotel and its owners. Drawing on relevant case law, we delve into the essential elements of negligence and the circumstances under which a hotel can be held responsible for the actions of its staff.

Read More »

FAMILY LAW – DIVISION OF MATRIMONIAL ASSETS

Many people have this false conception that all assets of the husband including EPF, shares and monies will be divided equally when there is a divorce.
What is the law that governs division of matrimonial assets in Malaysia?

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 »

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – ANTI-TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS AND ANTI-SMUGGLING OF IMMIGRANTS – CONSTITUTIONAL CLASH: EXAMINING LEGISLATIVE OVERREACH IN EVIDENCE LAW – PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE

This update scrutinizes the constitutionality of Section 61A of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2007, focusing on whether Parliament violated the separation of powers by defining prima facie evidence, and the judiciary’s role in upholding constitutional integrity.

Read More »
en_USEN
× Contact Us