Just a thought discussion.

Can developer guarantee a house's view be not blocked for a certain number of years ?

Will it be logical to have such law whereby buying a sea view unit guarantees the owner 20 years of unimpeded sea view. Which means no development blocking the views shall be passed?

Thinking bout this as saw some sea view condos being blocked by land reclamation in front for another high rise.

Those that paid a premium for the view kantoi. Hmmmm

Kantoi lah!
But then, in another 50 years, due to global warming, coastal areas will b under d sea. D sea will literally b in yr living room! Awesome

Developer can give you a gazillion forms of "guarantee" in forms of "representation" and at at the end of the day, it depends on if it's enforceable against them. Chances are, unlikely because if the court allows one plaintiff to do so, it will open the floodgates of litigation.

I think it works, if we can insert a relevant clause in the SPA.

definitely void for uncertainty.

Uncertainty?

Yeap! because we are talking about the state of the property, something that changes so in order to make this "term" works, the parties' first need to determine the state of the property (ie. the view) and how can the one do that, it's almost impossible to do so and further in order to reduce these into words, lagi susah.

Further, we are talking about direct purchase from developers. trying to amend Schedule H requires an amendment to the HDA which requires parliamentary sitting. So, i don't think our MPs will want to do that.

Yea. But if this is made into law?

Whereby it states that homeowners view of the sea need to contain 80% view of sea water. Any reduction in said view of sea water in 20 yeard sincr snp enables the owner to sue the offending man made structure for demolitions or payment.

Such a law would thereby guarantee owners that bought sea view houses and paid a premium would not have another building built in front of it for 20 years. Or land reclamation that reduces the amount of sea water seen will also be banned. Effectively protecting homeowners. But it's at the cost of no future development in the direction of the houses view for 20 years.

This post has been edited by IvanWong1989: Jun 21 2016, 09:56 PM

how can developer give guarantee if the surrounding land does not belong to them

even belong them, they cant for sure able to keep it as land is state matter.
only state gomen / sultan can 'guarantee'. they are the one of approve any development and can gazette the purpose of the land use.

if the developer is die die to give such guarantee, it will give a contingency liabilities to the company, very hard for a listed company.

This should be the biggest resistance.

this would be absurd as it would retard growth because everyone who owns a property will want such guarantee, unobstructed view of this and that.

surely, it's a law that only benefits a particulars demographic of the society and not the people generally.

such law has no inner morality.

Interesting.
Hmm. So it means that buying a house with the nice view should not be a factor.


Such a law would retard growth around those properties. But is there anyway to safeguard the properties of the house that buyers pay for ?
Can't think of any way.

Perhaps one would never be able to safeguard their homes view.

buying a house with a nice view is a gimmick, a representation to induce purchaser to enter into a contract.

let me draw an example;

you go into a car showroom and you see a ferrari. the salesperson told you there will be 100 pieces on chrome on the car and then you enter signed the contract. on the day you took delivery, you realized it only has 50 pieces of chrome. Sure, it affects the appearance but it does not affect the usability of the car.

To demand the Parliament to enact a law to guarantee that all Ferraris will have at least 100 pieces of chrome in their car would be absurd simply because:-
1) not all ferraris will have the same design; and
2) restrict the freedom of contract.

It will destroy the mechanism of trade, eventually. If you are wondering, yes, the law sides capitalism. Laws are just and fair but the people who interpret them are influences by capitalism.

However, that does not mean that purchasers are left without an avenue. True that it is not an offense but purchaser can still bring a civil action against these developers for misrepresentation. This can be proven enough if there are brochures and stuffs which you can proved that you were induced by them to purchase. Basically, the Parliament leaves this area grey because they seemingly take care of itself.

I hate to admit this but "caveat emptor" exists for a reason. It's not that purchasers will never be able to guarantee what they are promised, they can but with the Parliament being lazy, we have to take that extra initiatives.

Back to the example, the buyer of the Ferrari can force the salesperson/sales office to prepare an offer letter indicating that 100 pieces of chrome will be offered and have them signed.

Rather than letting people take care of your own welfare, we take care ourselves.

This post has been edited by shaniandras2787: Jun 24 2016, 10:13 AM

1st time i heard people concern on view being blocked. actually how many minutes a day you will view from your window or balcony?

maybe his main deciding factor to buy the said property because of it's view point. when it's view point is no longer there, hence him losing his interest and gets really disappointed.

yeah, but for me, got view or no view, i go home just to sleep. went home already night time, nothing to see. scared bat accidentally hit my face