Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Malaysia | 1-800-335-6202

Pa-22Ncvc-55-03.2022

Judgment Cited authorities 14 Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judge“It is common knowledge that in recent years, especially when government started giving housing loans making it possible for public servants to borrow money at 4% interest per annum to buy homes, there was an upsurge in demand for housing, and that to protect home buyers, most of whom are people of modest means, from rich and powerful developers, Parliament found it necessary to regulate the sale of houses and protect buyers by enacting the Act.” 17. As such, the provisions of the SPA should be interpreted purposively, which is to uphold the interests of P as the homebuyer. In PUD Regency (supra), the Federal Court said (at page 461): “[36] From the above, we would summarise the principles on the interpretation of social legislation as follows: (i) | Statutory interpretation usually begins with the literal rule. However, and without being too prescriptive, where the provision under construction is ambiguous, the courts will determine the meaning of the provision by resorting to other methods of construction foremost of which is the purposive rule .
Judgment Date01 March 2023
CourtHigh Court (Malaysia)
Record NumberJudge High Court of Malaya, Penang Civil Division NCvC 1
RespondentThe salient terms of the SPA are: (a) D1 and D2 shall not impose any encumbrances on the Property after the SPA is signed, without the prior consent of P (clause 2(1) of the SPA); (b) D1 and D2 undertake that the Property will be free from any such restrictions before P takes vacant possession of the Property (clause 2(1) of the SPA); (c) Vacant possession of the Property shall be given to P within 24 months from the date of the SPA (clause 22 of the SPA); (d) The purchase price of the Property is RM80,000 (clause 3 of the SPA). 14. At the outset, it must be pointed out that the SPA is a statutory contract. It is meant to protect homebuyers (such as P in this case) vis-avis the developers. | refer to the following authorities. 15. In PUD Regency Sdn Bhd v Tribunal Tuntutan Pembe
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX

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