Case:Caltex oil (Malaya)Ltdv. Ho Lai Yoke & Anor Prepared by : Fahru Azwa Bin Mohd Zain ( 027490) Prepared for: Sir Muhammad A. Zamani
On March 26, 1961, the vendor YFC and HHC granted to the plaintiffs an option to purchase a parcel of land made up of Lot Nos.145, 3 and 165. Lot 3 was state land which had been approved by the Collector of Land Revenue to the vendors. Lot 165 was acquired on October 12, 1961. On September 22, 1961,the plaintiffs receive the option and requested the vendors to deliver document of title and registrable transfers in exchange for the check $3350 for deposited. The vendors called at the office of the plaintiffs solicitors but produced no document of tittle
On October 12, 1961, the plaintiffs took back their cheque but paid a similar sum to their solicitors to be paid out to the vendors when the ownership details were satisfactorily settle. On the same day the vendors solicitor wrote to the plaintiffs solicitors informing them that the vendors had purchased Lot 165 from the beneficial owner and requested the plaintiffs to pay 90% of the purchase price in advance. On October 21, 1961 the vendors applied to the collector for variation of the express condition attached to the alienated portion of lot 3.
Upon the collector refusing this on April 7, 1962, the vendors solicitors wrote to the plaintiffs solicitors conveying the information and concluded by requesting an advance payment. on May 8, 1962 the vendors solicitors wrote to the plaintiffs solicitors that the vendors considerate the agreement to be at the end. The plaintiffs claimed specific performance of the contract.
LAWYERS: - D. G. Rawson for the plaintiffs - N. A. Marjoribanks for the defendants JUDGEMENT BY : Ong J. LEGISLATION REFERRED TO: Contract act 1950-section 52 Specific Relief Act 1950-section 11
PERFORMANCE OF RECIPROCAL PROMISESUNDER SECTION 52 :When a contract consists of reciprocal promises to besimultaneously performed, no promisor need perform hispromise unless the promise is ready and willing to performhis reciprocal promise
Ong J. of the high court held that certain clauses in an option agreement to purchase a parcel of land were reciprocal promises intended to be simultaneously performed within the meaning of section 52, and in the absence of express terms to the contrary, it was a well establish practice that in a contract for the sale and purchase of land, payment not a condition precedent to execution or transfer. The plaintiffs wee allowed specific performance of the contract, and the defendan contention that the plaintiffs had defaulted in payment was rejected.
In fact, the court found that non- payment of the agreed sum was entirely due to the default of the defendan being unable to perform their part of the contract and that the sum of money was ready and available at all times for payment to the defendants upon their production of the relevant document of title, which they failed to do.
Agree with the court’s decision because: plaintiffs was ready and willing to pay to the defendant but the defendant produce no document tittle. Based on section 25 plaintiffs will pay when the defendant is ready and willing to produce document title. Specific performance for defendant to continue the agreement because executing a proper registrable transfer and being the portion market and delineated in the plan attached to the agreement.