http://www.straitstimes.com/archive/...-unit-20130504

Court rejects couple's bid to buy condo unit

Judge dismisses their claim of error in option form's deadline of 2 days

Published on May 04, 2013

By K. C. Vijayan Senior Law Correspondent


A COUPLE'S bid to buy a condo unit for $1.25 million has failed after the High Court rejected their claim that the two-day deadline contained in the option-to-purchase form was an error the court could correct.

Justice Tay Yong Kwang, in judgment grounds issued yesterday, made clear that even if all the conditions were satisfied for the court to correct the error and enforce the sale, the conduct of the three property agents involved would make such a move unfair to the sellers.

All three, he said, tried to broker a deal as a team "without any regard as to whose interests they were supposed to look after".

At issue was the option-to- purchase form for a flat in Upper East Coast Road. It showed the deadline to exercise the option to be 4pm on Aug 16, 2012 - a day after it was signed by the seller.

Seller Alex Yeo signed the form on Aug 15 after it was issued by agent Darrell Heng but Mr Lim Koon Hai and his wife, the potential buyers, received it the next day from agent Donny Neo - unaware the deadline had passed. Eight days later, Mr Lim's bank notified him about the deadline error. By this time, the owners had sold the unit to another party for $1.27 million.

The Lims then lodged a caveat on the property and sought the court order to enforce the sale to them. Their lawyer Kelvin Lee argued the deadline should have been corrected to reflect the usual 14-day period and that their purchase bid was valid.

He added Mr Heng was their agent and that an offer letter to buy the property preceding the option letter would have alerted the owners to the 14-day period.

But Mr Yeo's lawyer S. V. Krishna Morthy countered there was no mistake with the deadline, pointing out that Mr Heng was acting in the Lims' interests.

Justice Tay found that the sellers never saw the offer letter mentioning the 14-day option period. He found Mr Heng had worked under the mistaken assumption of a 14-day period.

He held it was "inequitable" for the court to rectify the error, noting two of the agents were related to the Lims and were subordinates of the third agent.

He dismissed the Lims' suit with costs and ordered the caveat on the unit to be removed. The case helped clarify the law as to when the courts should step in to rectify a mistake and the role of estate agents in such deals.

[email protected]