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.
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.
Source: The Straits Times
–18 December 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment
No Spam, No Abusive Languages. Thank you for your cooperation!