Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Property option fee: Woman loses appeal

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    375

    Default Property option fee: Woman loses appeal

    The Straits Times
    www.straitstimes.comPublished on Dec 18, 2012

    By K.C. Vijayan Law Correspondent

    A HOUSEWIFE submitted a cheque to pay a 1 per cent option- to-purchase fee concerning a $27.6 million Swettenham Road bungalow.
    But the cheque for $276,000 bounced and the seller sued Madam Leong Miew Fong for the fee payable. She did not file her defence in the case and the High Court ordered her to pay the $276,000 by default.
    She applied to the High Court last month to set aside the judgment but did not succeed.
    Yesterday, she failed in her appeal to avoid paying the fee even though the sale had been aborted.
    In March, she had forwarded a cheque signed by her husband to the seller Swettenham19, a private firm dealing in real estate.
    The option-to-purchase fee would give her the right to proceed with the acquisition of the 16,800 sq ft double-storey property near the Botanic Gardens.
    But the cheque bounced as funds which her husband had expected to come into his bank account did not arrive, according to court documents filed.
    In April, Swettenham19 sued Madam Leong for the fee and won.
    Last month, Assistant Registrar Kevin Tan dismissed her move to set aside the outcome, pointing out that her failure to pay the fee did not prevent the seller from enforcing the option-to-purchase transaction, based on the terms of the valid contract.
    She appealed yesterday before Justice Tay Yong Kwang and said in court documents that she did not file a defence to the suit earlier because she was keen to negotiate and seek an amicable settlement with the owner.
    She further claimed she did not want to "antagonise" the owner and had hoped the property would not be sold to another party.
    Her lawyer Derek Kang urged the court to set aside the default judgment and allow Madam Leong to file her defence for a full hearing.
    He argued the deal as claimed by Swettenham19 was a one-way deal and did not become a contract between both parties as no money had been paid by her.
    This was an issue for the court to rule on in a trial, he said.
    But lawyer George Pereira, representing Swettenham19, countered that Madam Leong's claim to have sought to settle the dispute amicably and therefore not filing a defence was not borne out by the facts.
    He argued she could not take advantage of her own wrong by asserting that there was no contract since no payment was made when the cheque bounced.
    Justice Tay agreed and dismissed her appeal with costs.
    Lawyers said the case underscores the need to make clear in any option-to-purchase contract whether the deal takes effect only after the option-fee money is paid, to avoid a similar incident.
    [email protected]
    hungry eat sleepy sleep

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    7,482

    Default

    This housewife's husband do what business? $20+m bungalow. Woo.

  3. #3
    ikan bilis's Avatar
    ikan bilis is offline i'm Buaya ! Girls BEWARE !!...
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,385

    Default

    got similar case before, became bankrupt...

    http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=27260106


    "Mr Nifakis, who came to Singapore from Canada in 2001, thought he was 'safe' as he had not signed any documents committing himself to the deal.

    But he had handed over a $60,000 cheque as deposit, and what he did not know was that this was sufficient proof of his option to buy the property.

    His cheque bounced, but lawyers and property agents told The New Paper he was still obliged to buy the unit"

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    3,721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ikan bilis
    got similar case before, became bankrupt...

    http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=27260106


    "Mr Nifakis, who came to Singapore from Canada in 2001, thought he was 'safe' as he had not signed any documents committing himself to the deal.

    But he had handed over a $60,000 cheque as deposit, and what he did not know was that this was sufficient proof of his option to buy the property.

    His cheque bounced, but lawyers and property agents told The New Paper he was still obliged to buy the unit"
    He is not obliged to buy the unit. He just loses the deposit if he chooses not to exercise the option.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by august
    He is not obliged to buy the unit. He just loses the deposit if he chooses not to exercise the option.
    problem is he did not even pay the penalty (the $15k) coz the chq bounced. but seriously.. the devp also very attitude. for 15k sue until he backrupt. any one know which devp? better stay clear. but of coz... it could open a floodgate also. some things we dunno. maybe he went to taunt the devp and challenge them to sue him.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    3,721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shanhz
    problem is he did not even pay the penalty (the $15k) coz the chq bounced. but seriously.. the devp also very attitude. for 15k sue until he backrupt. any one know which devp? better stay clear. but of coz... it could open a floodgate also. some things we dunno. maybe he went to taunt the devp and challenge them to sue him.
    yes the seller can sue for the deposit.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    10,829

    Default

    http://www.straitstimes.com/premium/...ppeal-20121218

    Property option fee: Woman loses appeal

    She must pay sum as contract holds though cheque for payment bounced

    Published on Dec 18, 2012


    The Swettenham Road property involved in the case, which lawyers say points to a need to clarify in any option-to-purchase contract whether the deal takes effect only after the option fee is paid. -- PHOTO: DESMOND LUI FOR THE STRAITS TIMES

    By K.C. Vijayan, Law Correspondent

    A HOUSEWIFE submitted a cheque to pay a 1 per cent option- to-purchase fee concerning a $27.6 million Swettenham Road bungalow.

    But the cheque for $276,000 bounced and the seller sued Madam Leong Miew Fong for the fee payable. She did not file her defence in the case and the High Court ordered her to pay the $276,000 by default.

    She applied to the High Court last month to set aside the judgment but did not succeed.

    Yesterday, she failed in her appeal to avoid paying the fee even though the sale had been aborted.

    In March, she had forwarded a cheque signed by her husband to the seller Swettenham19, a private firm dealing in real estate.

    The option-to-purchase fee would give her the right to proceed with the acquisition of the 16,800 sq ft double-storey property near the Botanic Gardens.

    But the cheque bounced as funds which her husband had expected to come into his bank account did not arrive, according to court documents filed.

    In April, Swettenham19 sued Madam Leong for the fee and won.

    Last month, Assistant Registrar Kevin Tan dismissed her move to set aside the outcome, pointing out that her failure to pay the fee did not prevent the seller from enforcing the option-to-purchase transaction, based on the terms of the valid contract.

    She appealed yesterday before Justice Tay Yong Kwang and said in court documents that she did not file a defence to the suit earlier because she was keen to negotiate and seek an amicable settlement with the owner.

    She further claimed she did not want to "antagonise" the owner and had hoped the property would not be sold to another party.

    Her lawyer Derek Kang urged the court to set aside the default judgment and allow Madam Leong to file her defence for a full hearing.

    He argued the deal as claimed by Swettenham19 was a one-way deal and did not become a contract between both parties as no money had been paid by her.

    This was an issue for the court to rule on in a trial, he said.

    But lawyer George Pereira, representing Swettenham19, countered that Madam Leong's claim to have sought to settle the dispute amicably and therefore not filing a defence was not borne out by the facts.

    He argued she could not take advantage of her own wrong by asserting that there was no contract since no payment was made when the cheque bounced.

    Justice Tay agreed and dismissed her appeal with costs.

    Lawyers said the case underscores the need to make clear in any option-to-purchase contract whether the deal takes effect only after the option-fee money is paid, to avoid a similar incident.

    [email protected]

  8. #8
    ikan bilis's Avatar
    ikan bilis is offline i'm Buaya ! Girls BEWARE !!...
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,385

    Default

    => next time please please don't anyhow sign any blank cheque just want to be VVIP for the preview...

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,070

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ikan bilis
    => next time please please don't anyhow sign any blank cheque just want to be VVIP for the preview...
    So far I never prepare any blank cheque for VVIP previews but the agent did for me using his own cheque... !
    "Anyone who has not made a mistake has never tried anything new"

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    503

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CondoWE
    So far I never prepare any blank cheque for VVIP previews but the agent did for me using his own cheque... !
    You sure can find this kind of agents? Nowadays, thought everyone has to submit a blank cheque for VVIP review

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    -: 19-01-22, 10:53
  2. 'Ferrari woman' grants option to buy her GCB for S$47m
    By reporter2 in forum Landed Property
    Replies: 0
    -: 16-09-19, 10:43
  3. Condo owners' group loses appeal on costs
    By reporter2 in forum En Bloc Discussion and News
    Replies: 0
    -: 05-06-14, 15:41
  4. Iskandar loses its champion but keeps its appeal
    By reporter2 in forum HDB, EC, commercial and industrial property discussion
    Replies: 7
    -: 12-05-13, 09:47
  5. Woman loses battle to save her property firm
    By mr funny in forum HDB, EC, commercial and industrial property discussion
    Replies: 0
    -: 15-10-10, 03:20

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •