Hansel:
» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «
QUOTE(Hansel @ Jan 31 2011, 02:20 PM)
Heyyy, Bro,.. thank you again for the heavenly
words.
I think what you have mentioned is all there is to it, and well, the only documents that matter here is the Surrender Letter from the developer to the purchasers. NO other documents.
Hence, I would think your advice would be wholesome and complete, unless of course the developer starts to argue on the words inside the Surrender Letter. Anyway, there is no mention inside the Surrender Letter that the purchasers will still need to pay-up the remaining 20% before the developer will complete the MOT for them. The purchasers told me that the following sentence inside the 3-page letter would be vital to argue for the MOT :-
The developer said in the letter that :-
We have to surrender the above units to the purchasers at existing condition for them to complete their units as requested by them, since construction work cannot be resumed within the stipulated time frame confirmed during our meeting.
The keyword here would be : surrender.
Any other opinions, bro ? One thing though : I wonder what's the point of the developer trying to fight a case that they cannot win ? Unless they think they can still wrestle the remaining 20% from the purchasers, but we can see here that they do not have a strong case.
Still vague as the developer did not waive their right to claim for the balance of the purchase price yet to be disbursed in the letter. However, in the absence of anything in black and white we would have to look at the intention of the parties. Intention can be gauged from their conduct, act and/or ommissions. If we go by that basis, the purchasers would definitely have a stronger case. Not 100%, of course, but strong.
In the Schedule G agreement, this is what the remaining 20% balance is for:
On the date the Purchaser takes vacant possession of
the said Building, with water and electricity supply
ready for connection 12.5%
Within twenty-one (21) working days after receipt by
the Purchaser or the Purchaser’s solicitors of the
separate document of title to the said Lot together with a
valid and registrable Memorandum of Transfer to the
Purchaser duly executed by the Vendor or on the date
the Purchaser takes vacant possession of the said
Building, whichever is later. 2.5%
On the date the Purchaser takes vacant possession of the
said Building as in item 3 and to be held by the Vendor's
solicitor as stakeholder for payment to the Vendor as
follows:-
(a) two point five per centum (2.5%) at the expiry
of six (6) months after the date the Purchaser
takes vacant possession of the said Building;
(b) two point five per centum (2.5%) at the expiry
of eighteen (18) months after the date the
Purchaser takes vacant possession of the said
Building If you want me to play the Devil's Advocate and now argue on the developer's behalf, I would say that the balance 20% has nothing to do with the construction of the property. All that would've been paid out in the 80%. As such, whether the purchasers wanted to complete the project on their own is entirely up to them.
12.5% is to be paid when VP is given. Another 2.5% when MOT is ready to be executed. The other 7.5% is basically during the defect liability period (DLP). Assuming that the purchaser now refuses to pay the balance 20%, I doubt that DLP will still apply. Thus, there would be no DLP guarantee by the developer. Any defects would have to be rectified by the purchasers at their own cost.
The purchasers cannot, as the old adage goes,
'run with the hare and hunt with the hounds'. If they refuse to pay the 20%, they forego the DLP as well.
Jan 24 2011, 04:30 PM
)
Quote
0.0620sec
0.67
7 queries
GZIP Disabled