Thank you for sharing..
I stand corrected if I got my facts wrong..

Sinking fund could fall under the interpretation of "outgoings" by seller which include assessment fee, fire insurance, quit rent etc..

In some SPA, it would be stated clearly what constitute "outgoings" and if sinking fund is mentioned and the agreement is effected as such, then
the buyer would be required to pay for the unutilized sinking fund. However if it is not stated, then its a point of contention. For me I prefer this outgoings
to be specified in the SPA so its clear for both parties.

Terms in the SPA in the subsale/secondary market is essentially not governed by any Act but based on agreement between both parties following "market practice as far as I can understand but any clauses must not contravene existing laws for eg..agreement not to pay deduct rpgt  ..

Actually we were referring to the refund of unutilized sinking fund paid by seller at the time when he sells the property...

It is not a refund by JMB/MC but actually a reimbursement of unutilized sinking fund by BUYER..

I only found out about this when my fren sold her property and the buyer's lawyer ( she was  not represented)
refunded her the sinking fund (not specified  in the SPA) under apportionment of expenses... It was not much less than 2k for a
3 yr old prop

Many people are not even aware that this is even possible..