Goh Lye

JurisdictionSingapore
Judgment Date12 August 2010
Date12 August 2010
Docket NumberOriginating Summons No 449 of 2010
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Goh Lye Chin Raymond and another
Plaintiff
and
Poon Soon Chin and another
Defendant

[2010] SGHC 232

Philip Pillai J

Originating Summons No 449 of 2010

High Court

Land–Sale of land–Option to purchase–No expiry date stated on option–Grantor holding out for higher price–Whether purported exercise of option valid

The parties entered into three instruments in relation to a HDB flat: (a) an Offer to Purchase, signed by both defendants and the first plaintiff; (b) an Option to Purchase ( the Option ) signed by both defendants; and (c) a handwritten side letter signed by both defendants and the first plaintiff ( the Side Letter ). The Option did not contain any expiry date. Read cumulatively, the three documents provide for the defendants to receive the option fee and not to sell to anyone else until 5 April 2010. They anticipated the issue of a fresh option by 5 April 2010 in the event that the first plaintiff had problems with his HDB minimum occupation period.

The first plaintiff's agent tried to meet with defendants on 5 April 2010 but failed. On 12 April 2010 the plaintiffs purported to exercise the Option. The defendants took the position that the Option expired on 5 April 2010, but expressed willingness to sell the HDB flat at a higher price.

Held, declaring the Option to have been validly exercised, inter alia:

(1) There was no expiry date in the Option. 5 April 2010 was a date which appeared in the side letter but even there it was not described as an expiry date but only as the date up to which the defendants could not sell the Property to anyone else except the first plaintiff: at [8].

(2) The defendants' conduct evinced an intention to resile from the agreements in order to hold out for a higher price. Such conduct constituted circumstances similar to those contemplated by Tai Joon Lan v Yun Ai Chin [1993] 2 SLR (R) 596 which accordingly merit the treatment of the exercise of the Option on 12 April 2010 to be valid: at [9].

Tai Joon Lan v Yun Ai Chin [1993] 2 SLR (R) 596; [1993] 3 SLR 129 (folld)

Housing and Development Act (Cap 129, 2004 Rev Ed) s 49A

Fan Kin Ning (David Ong & Partners) for the plaintiffs

Tan Tuan Wee (Sim Mong Teck & Partners) for the defendants.

Judgment reserved.

Philip Pillai J

1 This is an originating summons for, inter alia:

  1. (a) adeclaration that the option to purchase dated 27 December 2009 granted by the defendants for the purchase of the property known as 242 Westwood Avenue...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Chew Ai Hua Sandra v Woo Kah Wai
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 28 June 2013
    ...claim to succeed: at [72] . Coles and Ravenshear, Re an Arbitration between [1907] 1 KB 1 (refd) Goh Lye Chin Raymond v Poon Soon Chin [2010] 4 SLR 1025 (distd) Ho Kian Siang v Ong Cheng Hoo [2000] 2 SLR (R) 480; [2000] 4 SLR 376 (refd) Johnson v Agnew [1980] AC 367 (folld) Joseph Mathew v ......
  • Chew Ai Hua, Sandra v Woo Kah Wai and another (Chesney Real Estate Pte Ltd, third party)
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 28 June 2013
    ...of Tai Joon Lan v Yun Ai Chin and another [1993] 2 SLR(R) 596 (“Tai Joon Lan”) and Goh Lye Chin Raymond v Poon Soon Chin and another [2010] 4 SLR 1025 (“Goh Lye Chin Raymond”) in support of this proposition. In Tai Joon Lan, the vendor provided the purchasers with an option that did not spe......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT