Sorry, You Must Sell

Source : The Electric New Paper, January 12, 2008

Higher offer, so owner tries to back out of deal. Judge says:

THEY had signed the option form for a $3.86 million condo.

But the seller, Indonesian businessman Sukanda Sutisna, had an offer that was $90,000 higher.

Then the excuses started.

The Draycott Park condominium had termites and it was leaking, Mr Sukanda claimed.

Draycott Park condominium, near Stevens Road. -- Picture: GAVIN FOO

But despite this, the buyers, Mr Ahuja Vivek Gopaldas and another unnamed person, wanted the property.

Then came Mr Sukanda's final tactic - he claimed the buyers did not sign the option form in time.

The case went to the High Court and the judge ruled in favour of the buyers last July.

UPHELD VERDICT

In December, he upheld his verdict after Mr Sukanda appealed.

Justice Lee Seiu Kin found that the plantiffs had properly exercised the option to buy the unit.

Justice Lee pointed out inconsistencies in Mr Sukanda's version of events.

Mr Sukanda argued that the buyers had a day to decide whether to exercise their option to buy and that this had expired by the time the buyers signed theoption.

However, this was found to be baseless, as the accepted industry practice is that interested buyers have a 14-day period to exercise their option.

Mr Sukanda also accepted the buyers' cheque of $38,600 after the 'one-day' expiry.

He had also signed the option for the buyers to buy the unit in front of the housing agent.

Justice Lee said in his judgment: 'He would have to explain why, if he had agreed to sell that property at $3.86 (million) shortly after 6.15pm on 2 Apr 2007, he would sign an option that had expired even before he signed it.

'There are, of course, other less benign reasons.

'For instance, if he had signed the option with the knowledge that it was a worthless piece of paper at the outset, his motives in accepting the cheque could be called into question.'

Justice Lee found the buyers' version of events to be more acceptable.

They said they responded to a property advertisement placed last March in The Straits Times for the Draycott Park unit.

They dealt with a housing agent called Carmen Ng Li Hua, who worked for Electronic Realty Associates.

They visited the apartment many times and decided to make an offer of $3.86million on 1 Apr last year.

Mr Sukanda had wanted to sell it for at least $3.85m.

On the same day, the buyers handed Ms Ng a cheque of $38,600 as 1 per cent of the offer price.

Mr Sukanda was to accept the cheque only if he agreed to the offer.

He was also to sign the option-to-purchase form.

Ms Ng was told by the buyers that they wanted a 14-day period from 1Apr to exercise their option to buy, should Mr Sukanda accept it.

OPTION DELIVERED

The next day at 6.40pm, Ms Ng went to the buyers' house at Claymore Hill to deliver the signed option.

Mr Sukanda had signed it half an hour earlier at his home in Balmoral Park.

At 9.40pm that day, Mr Sukanda's daughter, Imelda, received a call from another housing agent.

The agent said a buyer from HongKong was prepared to pay $3.95m for the Draycott Park unit.

Ms Ng was aware of this offer much earlier, at 7.20pm.

But as the deal with the buyers was already settled, Ms Ng did not inform Mr Sukanda of the new offer.

On the morning of 3 Apr, Ms Ng was called to meet Mr Sukanda, his daughter and their lawyer Nicholas Loh of Legal21.

At the meeting, Ms Ng was told she had mishandled the sale and was negligent as she did not respond to the other housing agent's offer.

As a result, Mr Sukanda missed out on selling the condo unit at a higher price.

Ms Ng was then instructed to find out if the buyers wanted to exercise their option to buy the unit.

The plaintiffs said they would exercise their option to buy.

The next day, a cheque of $154,400 was sent to Mr Sukanda's lawyers by the buyers. This was payment for the deposit balance.

The cheque was later returned to the buyers by Mr Sukanda's lawyers.

They were informed that Mr Sukanda said the option expired on 2 Apr, a day after the plaintiffs made the first offer.

It was then that the plaintiffs took the case to court.