New Reporter
23-11-23, 14:39
China businessman sues Huttons and agent for alleged misrepresentation in property deal
Nov 22, 2023
A CHINESE businessman is seeking about S$1.5 million in damages from a Huttons property agent who allegedly promised to sell a new condominium unit that he had been “induced” to buy.
However, the property agent, Ong Jianlong, did not do so before Chen Qiming’s Option to Purchase (OTP) for the S$5.1 million unit expired, resulting in Chen forfeiting payments made.
On Tuesday (Nov 21), Chen’s case was heard in the High Court on the first day of a trial in which Ong and Huttons Asia are named as defendants.
Chen had nominally purchased the property, a sixth-floor unit at Lloyd SixtyFive, together with his ex-wife Wu Lisha in 2018.
According to Chen’s opening statement, he was induced into entering an OTP in Oct 2018 after Ong “made clear and unequivocal representations in relation to the property and the exit options” for him.
“One of such representations was that Ong would be able to (successfully) sell the property in the event that (Chen) decides not to exercise the OTP. These representations made by Ong were materially relied on by (Chen) in his decision to purchase the property,” the statement noted.
Chen, a businessman mostly involved in trading foreign currency in China and Hong Kong, had decided to shift the heart of his business activities to Singapore around 2018.
On Tuesday, Chen told the court that he formed the intention to apply to become a Singapore permanent resident (PR) after June 2018.
He added that Ong had told him that, in the event he managed to obtain PR status, the Additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty (ABSD) payable for property would be at a lower rate.
Ong allegedly suggested to Chen that he could consider buying a unit at Lloyd SixtyFive. At that time, the developer of Lloyd SixtyFive, TG Development, offered a deferred payment scheme in which a prospective buyer can move into the unit after paying 30 per cent of the sale price, and would have to exercise the OTP within two years of the option date.
“The plaintiff thought it would be a good idea to purchase a unit… for his accommodation needs (and that of his family) while he applies for PR, and in the event that he obtains PR status, he would pay a lower rate of ABSD,” Chen’s opening statement noted.
However, Chen had “reservations about the purchase”. He was unsure if he would be able to obtain PR status in time and, more importantly, he wanted to build a loft in the unit he bought to accommodate a third bedroom for his family.
Chen claimed that Ong “repeatedly” assured him that he would be able to extend the length of the study in the unit by 5 m to construct the loft. However, in or around June 2019, Chen learnt that this was not allegedly permitted, and he could only build a smaller loft which would not be large enough to accommodate an additional bedroom.
Upon learning he would not be able to construct the loft, Chen was “indignant and disappointed”, and decided to put the property up for sub-sale. He allegedly told Ong to find another buyer before the OTP expired on Oct 30, 2020.
Huttons and Ong have refuted Chen’s version of events, claiming that a loft of 5 m by 1 m could still be built without approval. Even if Chen wished to build a larger loft, he could still do so by obtaining approval from the developer or the relevant authority, they said.
No loss was caused to Chen, they added.
After Chen was allegedly informed by his contractor in or around June 2019 that the proposed loft would require approval, he continued to stay in the unit until May 2021 without building a loft.
Chen is also claiming that Ong said he would be able to sell his unit “without much difficulty” before Oct 2020. Ong had allegedly indicated that he would be able to sell the unit, as it was a freehold property in a prime location, with a price that was much cheaper than others in the area.
Huttons and Ong have denied this statement.
“The alleged statement does not relate to a matter of past or present fact. It is a statement of intention and/or mere puff,” they said. Even if the statement was made and was false, Ong had “reasonable grounds to believe that the statement was true,” they added.
The defendants stressed that Chen was not induced into obtaining the OTP by the alleged statement, and was instead attracted to the property due to its proximity to an international school opposite the development where he intended to enroll his child.
“Furthermore, (Chen) considered the property had suitable fengshui. The development was also within walking distance of various amenities and near the plaintiff’s office at Great World City.”
Both parties also dispute the existence of May 2020 as the “deadline” by which Ong had allegedly agreed to find a buyer for Chen. Chen claims this was set out in an oral agreement while the defendants claim there was no “evidence of an express agreement” to do so.
“A statement as to the future is in a promise and the plaintiff... has to show that the promise forms part of a valid contract,” the defendants said.
As to Huttons’ involvement, Chen is claiming vicarious liability as Huttons is the estate agent under which Ong is registered as a salesperson.
However, both Huttons and Ong have denied the existence of an employer-employee or principal-agent relationship.
Although Huttons was the marketing agency for Lloyd SixtyFive, Ong was not a tagger for the development, they said.
Agents tagged to a project are trained and selected to market the launch.
They added that Huttons “did not exercise control over” Ong’s interactions with Chen and there was “no evidence of any consent” from Huttons for Ong to make the alleged misrepresentations to Chen.
Huttons and Ong are represented by Sharon Lin and Lim Chong Hian from Withers KhattarWong, while Low Hong Quan from Fervent Chambers is the solicitor for Chen.
https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/property/china-businessman-sues-huttons-and-agent-alleged-misrepresentation-property-deal
Nov 22, 2023
A CHINESE businessman is seeking about S$1.5 million in damages from a Huttons property agent who allegedly promised to sell a new condominium unit that he had been “induced” to buy.
However, the property agent, Ong Jianlong, did not do so before Chen Qiming’s Option to Purchase (OTP) for the S$5.1 million unit expired, resulting in Chen forfeiting payments made.
On Tuesday (Nov 21), Chen’s case was heard in the High Court on the first day of a trial in which Ong and Huttons Asia are named as defendants.
Chen had nominally purchased the property, a sixth-floor unit at Lloyd SixtyFive, together with his ex-wife Wu Lisha in 2018.
According to Chen’s opening statement, he was induced into entering an OTP in Oct 2018 after Ong “made clear and unequivocal representations in relation to the property and the exit options” for him.
“One of such representations was that Ong would be able to (successfully) sell the property in the event that (Chen) decides not to exercise the OTP. These representations made by Ong were materially relied on by (Chen) in his decision to purchase the property,” the statement noted.
Chen, a businessman mostly involved in trading foreign currency in China and Hong Kong, had decided to shift the heart of his business activities to Singapore around 2018.
On Tuesday, Chen told the court that he formed the intention to apply to become a Singapore permanent resident (PR) after June 2018.
He added that Ong had told him that, in the event he managed to obtain PR status, the Additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty (ABSD) payable for property would be at a lower rate.
Ong allegedly suggested to Chen that he could consider buying a unit at Lloyd SixtyFive. At that time, the developer of Lloyd SixtyFive, TG Development, offered a deferred payment scheme in which a prospective buyer can move into the unit after paying 30 per cent of the sale price, and would have to exercise the OTP within two years of the option date.
“The plaintiff thought it would be a good idea to purchase a unit… for his accommodation needs (and that of his family) while he applies for PR, and in the event that he obtains PR status, he would pay a lower rate of ABSD,” Chen’s opening statement noted.
However, Chen had “reservations about the purchase”. He was unsure if he would be able to obtain PR status in time and, more importantly, he wanted to build a loft in the unit he bought to accommodate a third bedroom for his family.
Chen claimed that Ong “repeatedly” assured him that he would be able to extend the length of the study in the unit by 5 m to construct the loft. However, in or around June 2019, Chen learnt that this was not allegedly permitted, and he could only build a smaller loft which would not be large enough to accommodate an additional bedroom.
Upon learning he would not be able to construct the loft, Chen was “indignant and disappointed”, and decided to put the property up for sub-sale. He allegedly told Ong to find another buyer before the OTP expired on Oct 30, 2020.
Huttons and Ong have refuted Chen’s version of events, claiming that a loft of 5 m by 1 m could still be built without approval. Even if Chen wished to build a larger loft, he could still do so by obtaining approval from the developer or the relevant authority, they said.
No loss was caused to Chen, they added.
After Chen was allegedly informed by his contractor in or around June 2019 that the proposed loft would require approval, he continued to stay in the unit until May 2021 without building a loft.
Chen is also claiming that Ong said he would be able to sell his unit “without much difficulty” before Oct 2020. Ong had allegedly indicated that he would be able to sell the unit, as it was a freehold property in a prime location, with a price that was much cheaper than others in the area.
Huttons and Ong have denied this statement.
“The alleged statement does not relate to a matter of past or present fact. It is a statement of intention and/or mere puff,” they said. Even if the statement was made and was false, Ong had “reasonable grounds to believe that the statement was true,” they added.
The defendants stressed that Chen was not induced into obtaining the OTP by the alleged statement, and was instead attracted to the property due to its proximity to an international school opposite the development where he intended to enroll his child.
“Furthermore, (Chen) considered the property had suitable fengshui. The development was also within walking distance of various amenities and near the plaintiff’s office at Great World City.”
Both parties also dispute the existence of May 2020 as the “deadline” by which Ong had allegedly agreed to find a buyer for Chen. Chen claims this was set out in an oral agreement while the defendants claim there was no “evidence of an express agreement” to do so.
“A statement as to the future is in a promise and the plaintiff... has to show that the promise forms part of a valid contract,” the defendants said.
As to Huttons’ involvement, Chen is claiming vicarious liability as Huttons is the estate agent under which Ong is registered as a salesperson.
However, both Huttons and Ong have denied the existence of an employer-employee or principal-agent relationship.
Although Huttons was the marketing agency for Lloyd SixtyFive, Ong was not a tagger for the development, they said.
Agents tagged to a project are trained and selected to market the launch.
They added that Huttons “did not exercise control over” Ong’s interactions with Chen and there was “no evidence of any consent” from Huttons for Ong to make the alleged misrepresentations to Chen.
Huttons and Ong are represented by Sharon Lin and Lim Chong Hian from Withers KhattarWong, while Low Hong Quan from Fervent Chambers is the solicitor for Chen.
https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/property/china-businessman-sues-huttons-and-agent-alleged-misrepresentation-property-deal