Loh Chin Kok and Another v Lee Teck Seng Paul

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Christopher Lau JC
• Judgment Date: 13 August 1996
• Neutral Citation: [1996] SGHC 168
• Docket Number: Suit No 1746 of 1993
• Date: 13 August 1996
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1996
• Plaintiff Counsel: Edmund Nathan (Edmund Nathan & Co)
• Citation: [1996] SGHC 168
• Defendant Counsel: Samantha Poo (Chong Yeo & Partners)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Oral agreement for sale and purchase of property -Whether agreement enforceable,Contract,Whether omission of completion date precluded purchaser from bringing action,Formalities,s 4 UK Statute of Frauds 1677,Cheque given to vendor as deposit with description of property and price stated on back of cheque,Whether there was sufficient note or memorandum of alleged agreement

Cur Adv Vult

The first and second plaintiffs` claim in this action is for specific performance of an oral agreement (the agreement) allegedly reached between them and the defendant on 2 March 1993 for the sale by the defendant to the first and second plaintiffs of a freehold property known as unit 8-J ICB Shopping Centre, Yio Chu Kang Road, Singapore 1954 (the defendant`s property) at a price of $180,000. Alternatively and in addition to the claim for specific performance, the first and second plaintiffs claim damages for alleged breach of contract.

The defendant denied any such agreement was concluded with both plaintiffs and that if there was such an agreement, it was at best an agreement subject to contract and in any event was not enforceable since no sufficient note or memorandum of the alleged agreement was signed by the defendant pursuant to s 4 of the English Statute of Frauds 1677 (the Statute). Both the plaintiffs and the defendants accept that the statute applied in Singapore at the relevant time.

This defence raised the following issues for consideration:

(a) Whether there was an agreement made on 2 March 1993 between Low Chin Kok (the first plaintiff) and the defendant for the sale of the defendant`s property to both plaintiffs for $180,000, with completion of the sale to take place in December 1993;

(b) whether the said agreement was subject to contract as alleged by the defendant;

(c) whether there was a sufficient note or memorandum of the agreement signed by the defendant; and

(d) if there was a valid and enforceable agreement concluded on 2 March 1993, whether both the plaintiffs are entitled to specific performance of that agreement and/or to damages for breach of contract in lieu.

On the evening of 2 March 1993, the first plaintiff, who, together with the second plaintiff, carried on the business of, amongst other things, a second hand car dealer at units 8-K and 8-L ICB Shopping Centre, Singapore (the plaintiffs` property) met with Paul Lee Teck Seng (the defendant). The first plaintiff`s discussions with the defendant centred on the sale of the defendant`s property. The first plaintiff claims that on the conclusion of those discussions, an oral agreement was reached between the plaintiffs and the defendant for the sale of the defendant`s property by the defendant to the plaintiffs at a price of $180,000 and with completion of the sale to take place in December 1993.

The first plaintiff`s evidence is that sometime on 2 March 1993, whilst he was in his office in the plaintiff`s property, he was visited by various persons who enquired whether the defendant`s property was for sale. This prompted him to look at the advertisements column in The Straits Times that day on the sale of shop units. In scouring the advertisments column he said he noticed an advertisement for the sale of a unit measuring 360 sq ft at the junction of Yio Chu Kang Road and Upper Serangoon Road for $190,000. The telephone call he made to the person at the telephone number advertised revealed that it was the defendant`s property that was being put up for sale and that the defendant would be at the property that evening. So at about 8 o`clock that evening, he waited for the defendant in the vicinity of the defendant`s property. When he saw the defendant, he asked the defendant to come over to his office in the plaintiffs` property to discuss the sale of the defendant`s property. The defendant did and the discussions that followed took place in the presence of one of the first plaintiff`s customers called Mr Tan Hiong Kuang (Tan).

The first plaintiff`s and Tan`s evidence is that those discussions were fruitful in that they culminated in an oral agreement between the first plaintiff and the defendant for the defendant to sell the property to the first plaintiff in the agreed sum of $180,000 (the agreed price) and for the completion of the sale to be in December 1993.

It was not disputed by the defendant that on the discussions` conclusion, a cheque for $18,000 was drawn by the first plaintiff in favour of the defendant as payment of the deposit amounting to 10% of the agreed price, and...