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.

definitely void for 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.

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.

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