Ampas Apartment owners fail to keep $ 4.75 million deposit after buyer cancels bulk sale, Courts & Crime News & Top Stories

SINGAPORE – Owners of the 43-unit Ampas Apartment will have to repay a $ 4.75 million deposit that one Oxley Holdings unit paid in a bulk sale that it later canceled.

On Friday, November 5, the High Court dismissed a lawsuit brought against Oxley Jasper by 42 of the 43 homeowners, who said they were entitled to keep the bond.

The remaining owner, who was prepared to have his share of the deposit returned to Oxley, was named as the second defendant.

Ampas Apartment, a freehold property off Balestier Road, was sold to Oxley Jasper in 2018 in a $ 95 million block sale.

Oxley made an initial deposit of $ 4.75 million, but later said he was canceling the deal because a condition precedent – a condition that must be met for the contract to be effective – could not be met.

Under the sale and purchase agreement, the transaction was subject to obtaining a building permit for Oxley for a new development comprising at least 120 units.

But the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) only authorized 112 units, which was the maximum number allowed for the site according to its 2012 guidelines.

The collective selling committee insisted that Oxley still pay an additional $ 4.75 million down payment.

When Oxley refused to do so, the committee said it was losing the original deposit.

The plaintiffs, represented by Mr. Lee Ee Yang, said the committee mistakenly believed 120 was the maximum number of units allowed.

The plaintiffs wanted the court to rectify the condition precedent clause in the agreement to declare 112 units instead of 120 units.

If the agreement were rectified, Oxley’s termination would be invalid and his original deposit would have been properly forfeited for non-payment of the additional deposit.

Oxley, represented by Mr. Kelvin Poon, argued that the law does not allow the agreement to be rectified for such a one-sided error.

The proponent also disputed the complainants’ assertion that the committee made the error in question.

In a written judgment handed down on Friday, Judge Andre Maniam said the plaintiffs’ case had failed both in law and in fact.

The judge noted that the authorities in the case did not support the rectification under the current circumstances.

He said: “The number 112 is not what the parties agreed to, nor what the collective selling committee believed the parties to have agreed upon; there was no actual / perceived agreement or intent. municipality as to number 112. “

The judge also found that the complainants had failed to prove that the committee made the alleged error.

He concluded that the committee members who signed the agreement did not believe at the time that 120 units was the maximum number of units allowed.

“They weren’t thinking about the guidelines at all. On the contrary, they were just wondering if the prerequisite of 120 units was achievable,” he said.

The judge said Oxley validly terminated and canceled the deal.

“In the circumstances, Oxley had no obligation to pay the additional deposit; and the plaintiffs were not entitled to waive or retain the original deposit.”

Source link

About Palmer Mohler

Check Also

UK mortgage deposit climbs to 110% of average salary

House prices have continued to rise faster than profits in recent quarters. Photo: Getty Images …