This judgment is subject to final editorial corrections approved by the court and/or redaction pursuant to the publisher’s duty in compliance with the law, for publication in LawNet and/or the Singapore Law Reports. |
Gain City Best-Electric Pte Ltd v Olivine Magnetic Pte Ltd
[1997] SGHC 46
Originating Summons No 995 of 1996
Goh Joon Seng J
03 March 1997
1
Judgment:
2 GROUNDS OF DECISION
3 On 11 January 1996, the Defendant in consideration of the sum of $12,600 < 'the
option fee' > granted an option <'the option' > to the Plaintiff to purchase its
property known as 130 Genting Lane, Singapore < 'the property' > at the price of
$1,260,000 subject to existing tenancy. The property is held by the Defendant under a
30-year lease granted by the Jurong Town Corporation < 'JTC' > at a yearly rent
payable on the first day of January each year. The relevant terms of the option are
clauses 2, 4, 5, 6, 12 and 13. They read:<p&rt2. The sale is subject to the
'Singapore Law Society's Conditions of Sale 1994' so far as the same are applicable to a
sale by private treaty and are not varied by or inconsistent with the terms herein.
4 ... ...
5 4(a) The Sale and Purchase herein is subject to :
6
7
8
9 (c) ... ...
10
11
12 ... ...
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 We regret to inform you that although we sympathise with your client's current
situation, we are unable to accede to your client's request to delay the payment of the
arrears. We therefore strongly urge your client to remit the full sum of $84,322.59 <
for 128 and 130 Genting Lane > (as at 15 Apr 96) being the arrears for the above
properties by 30 Apr 96 at the latest, failing which we shall have no alternative but to
refer to the matter for legal action. In that event, all costs incurred shall be borne by
your client. Please also note that interest at 8.5% per annum will continue to be charged
up to the date of full payment.
27
28
29
30 Re: NO. 130 GENTING LANE
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38 12 On 20 August 1996 the Plaintiff's solicitors replied as follows:
39 ... ...
40 We are instructed that your clients' 21 days' notice is without basis.
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56 Dated this 3rd day of March 1997
57 GOH JOON SENG
58 JUDGE
Ho Chee Tong for the plaintiffs
Harjeet Singh for the defendants