reporter2
05-07-13, 15:02
http://www.straitstimes.com/archive/wednesday/premium/singapore/story/couple-failed-condo-sale-must-pay-damages-20130703
Couple in failed condo sale must pay damages
They breached valid contract by refusing to sell Balestier unit after oral acceptance: Judge
Published on Jul 03, 2013
By K.c. Vijayan Senior Law Correspondent
A COUPLE who refused to complete the sale of their condominium unit were ordered to pay damages to the potential buyer after a court found they had breached a valid contract.
The High Court found Ms Sandra Chew had issued a valid offer letter for the unit in Minbu Road, off Balestier Road, and that the sellers had accepted this.
However, Mr Woo Kah Wai and his wife argued that it was the option to purchase document which they had prepared that was key to the deal, and the buyer had not met the prescribed deadline for its return.
In written grounds released yesterday, Judicial Commissioner Lionel Yee rejected their claim in a landmark case, which made clear that binding property deals can also be clinched through contracts involving a written offer to buy and oral acceptance of that offer by the seller.
The usual property transaction route sees the seller issue the option to purchase document, with the deal sealed only after the buyer signs the form and returns with a 5 per cent deposit to the seller within a prescribed deadline.
Ms Chew, 35, offered to buy the unit in February 2010 and issued a letter to buy and a $9,200 cheque to Mr Woo's agent. The sum served as option money amounting to 1 per cent of the buying price.
Mr Woo had a three-day deadline by which to accept her offer. When told, he went to his agent's office, took the $9,200 cheque and signed the option to purchase form prepared by the agent's secretary.
The form was to be handed to Ms Chew to be signed and returned by a three-day deadline; this was missed by five days. Despite her efforts to extend the deadline, Mr Woo's lawyers refused to accept the form.
Ms Chew, represented by lawyers Christopher Daniel and Lawrence Lim, argued that the Woos reneged on the deal by refusing to accept the option to purchase form.
The judge ruled there was an offer and Mr Woo had signalled acceptance by banking the $9,200 cheque and keeping it beyond Ms Chew's offer deadline of three days. He noted the sellers had also told their agent they had agreed to her offer.
He clarified that the requirement to sign the option to purchase form prepared by Mr Woo's agent was part of the process to effect the binding agreement that the two parties had already entered into.
The judge also found the defendants breached their contractual duty to deliver this form to Ms Chew within three days as provided in her acceptance offer.
He ordered that damages payable to Ms Chew be assessed based on the difference in market value at the time of the intended sale completion in May 2010 and the original purchase price of $920,000 from February that year. The judge ordered the option money of $9,200 to be repaid to Ms Chew.
The property in Balestier was sold to another party in July 2010 for $1,050,000.
[email protected]
Couple in failed condo sale must pay damages
They breached valid contract by refusing to sell Balestier unit after oral acceptance: Judge
Published on Jul 03, 2013
By K.c. Vijayan Senior Law Correspondent
A COUPLE who refused to complete the sale of their condominium unit were ordered to pay damages to the potential buyer after a court found they had breached a valid contract.
The High Court found Ms Sandra Chew had issued a valid offer letter for the unit in Minbu Road, off Balestier Road, and that the sellers had accepted this.
However, Mr Woo Kah Wai and his wife argued that it was the option to purchase document which they had prepared that was key to the deal, and the buyer had not met the prescribed deadline for its return.
In written grounds released yesterday, Judicial Commissioner Lionel Yee rejected their claim in a landmark case, which made clear that binding property deals can also be clinched through contracts involving a written offer to buy and oral acceptance of that offer by the seller.
The usual property transaction route sees the seller issue the option to purchase document, with the deal sealed only after the buyer signs the form and returns with a 5 per cent deposit to the seller within a prescribed deadline.
Ms Chew, 35, offered to buy the unit in February 2010 and issued a letter to buy and a $9,200 cheque to Mr Woo's agent. The sum served as option money amounting to 1 per cent of the buying price.
Mr Woo had a three-day deadline by which to accept her offer. When told, he went to his agent's office, took the $9,200 cheque and signed the option to purchase form prepared by the agent's secretary.
The form was to be handed to Ms Chew to be signed and returned by a three-day deadline; this was missed by five days. Despite her efforts to extend the deadline, Mr Woo's lawyers refused to accept the form.
Ms Chew, represented by lawyers Christopher Daniel and Lawrence Lim, argued that the Woos reneged on the deal by refusing to accept the option to purchase form.
The judge ruled there was an offer and Mr Woo had signalled acceptance by banking the $9,200 cheque and keeping it beyond Ms Chew's offer deadline of three days. He noted the sellers had also told their agent they had agreed to her offer.
He clarified that the requirement to sign the option to purchase form prepared by Mr Woo's agent was part of the process to effect the binding agreement that the two parties had already entered into.
The judge also found the defendants breached their contractual duty to deliver this form to Ms Chew within three days as provided in her acceptance offer.
He ordered that damages payable to Ms Chew be assessed based on the difference in market value at the time of the intended sale completion in May 2010 and the original purchase price of $920,000 from February that year. The judge ordered the option money of $9,200 to be repaid to Ms Chew.
The property in Balestier was sold to another party in July 2010 for $1,050,000.
[email protected]