地主可以没收定金吗？帮帮忙。

虎宝宝

友人看中了一块地，很快的就给了30k做定金，不是down payment，对方也写了一封信给友人，说明他收了30k的定金，然后不可以再卖给别人，也没有写这样的情况可以维持多久。也没有讲明友人几时要签snp。
问题出现了，bank对那地的value没有那么高（只有70%of selling price），所以友人不能贷款那么多。友人就很坦白的和地主讲贷款不到，想拿回30K了事。可是地主就杀出， 我只给你一给月时间， 不然30K就没收。

问题：
1。 地主可以没收30k吗？
2。地主的信是没有写限期的，现在突然讲一个月，可以这样吗？
3。如果地主不还钱，友人可以拿信去caveat哪个地吗？
4。除了ppb还有那间银行可以做土地贷款的? 因为有人想拿其他的地来贷款，如果地主可以没收30K.

虎宝宝

1) 是的,假如你的朋友不要买那个土地。He deem to forfeit the deposit.
2)it depends on the facts. (Tr ...
derekting2u 发表于 31-10-2010 06:48 PM

谢谢，可是我的朋友并没有放弃买这块地，只是和他讲银行拿不到这个价，友人还在找着其他的方法，如拿其它的地来借钱，还在和银行商议。可是地主就和别人签了snp， 还说不还定金。理由是已经给了一个月时间，可是那张信并没有讲限期，更没提到一个月后可以forfeit定金，却写明不可地主不可将地卖别人。加上他卖前也没有通知友人。加上友人并不晓得一个月后地主可以forfeit定金。我都觉得很冤枉。

虎宝宝

回复  虎宝宝
你需要了解卖家也不可能无限期的被买家postpone。我个人认为卖家给了reasonable period。对 ...
derekting2u 发表于 2-11-2010 11:18 PM

友人真的不知道一个月后地主可以forfeit定金， 再说友人并没有讲不买。只是需要时间去拿其它的地/屋来贷款。也搞得七七八八了。而且是有通知地主的。地主还和友人讲不急，你慢慢搞你的银行贷款，如果真的不能就把定金奉还。友人听了都觉得地主很公道。怎么知道转眼就偷偷卖了给别人，被发现后还说要没收定金。现在友人翻脸了讲请律师。地主才要还20k, 可是友人已经不稀罕了，决定请律师。来个两败俱伤（我拿不回钱， 你也不用卖地）。今天地主可能知道理亏，所以要和友人商量，看可不可以还30k了事。可是友人却不要了，因为很生气了。之前好声好气和他商量， 他却处处为难。
友人的律师讲有得来。现在要地主赔60k。因为收双边的钱/和约。
像这样， 如果友人输了会有什么法律责任吗？是不是最多就是赔了30k的定金？

kaiyet

哇。。。给你时间去借loan，借不到loan，还给你一个月时间~~时间长到reasonable过龙tim啦~

bobcat

友人看中了一块地，很快的就给了30k做定金，不是down payment，对方也写了一封信给友人，说明他收了30k的定 ...
虎宝宝 发表于 31-10-2010 11:51 AM

    你绝对能lodge caveat，因为你的30k定金已经consider是一个contract，land owner keep the land for you for the consideration of 30k。LZ，你绝对有caveatable interest。因为已经有judicial precedent了，也就是decided court case，court award specific performance，要地主卖给那个有lodge caveat的人。在那个case，我清楚记得那个买家的S&P给的period去找loan已经expired了，但是court还是in favour of 那个买家。我忘记是什么case了，如果你要，我可以去找回。

还有，如果你的朋友想拿回定金，也是possible的，因为有很多decided cases，如果要forfeit这个定金，那么地主要prove actual loss，而这loss一定要是direct loss。当然，这地主很明显没有suffer到什么loss。拿不回30k也能拿回25k。

bobcat

回复  bobcat
My learned friend may I have your attention to the case of Matair Suhaili & Anor v Ro ...
derekting2u 发表于 4-11-2010 09:27 PM

    ic。你的case不能apply在LZ吧，你的case purchaser 有十年的period，但是还是没有settle remaining cost。而且你的case不在半岛，半岛这里是用National Land Code的。我这里有个case，在Federal Court的：

MACON ENGINEERS SDN BHD V GOH HOOI YIN [1976] 2 MLJ 53：
The respondent had agreed to purchase certain property from the vendors for the sum of $ 175,000 and had paid a deposit of $ 17,500 towards the purchase price. The date of completion was November 6, 1973. On November 6, 1973 the vendor's solicitor gave notice to the respondent's solicitors that the balance of the purchase price was to be paid by that day and that if the money was not paid the deposit would be forfeited. On November 23, 1973 the respondent's solicitors wrote to the vendor's solicitors pointing out that the vendors were not the registered proprietors of the property and stating that they were prepared to complete the purchase if the vendors were the registered proprietors, failing which he would rescind the contract and sue for damages. On November 27, 1973 the vendor's solicitors wrote to the purchaser's solicitors to state that no question of rescission of the agreement could arise as the agreement had been determined and the deposit forfeited. The respondent attempted to register a caveat to protect his right and interest in the agreement but did not succeed in doing so till November 21, 1974. On June 25, 1974 he issued a writ of summons against the vendors claiming specific performance of the agreement and damages. The appellants entered into an agreement to purchase the property from the vendors for a sum of $ 195,000 on June 15, 1974 and on full payment of the purchase price the vendors had executed a legal transfer of the property in their favour. The transfer could not however be registered because of the respondent's caveat. The appellants applied for the removal of their caveat and their application having been dismissed in the High Court they appealed to the Federal Court.

Held, dismissing the appeal;

(1)   it would seem abundantly clear from the authorities that so long as there is in existence a valid agreement for the sale of land, the purchaser is entitled to lodge a caveat to protect his rights under the contract and to sue for specific performance of the agreement;

(2)   the learned judge was therefore right in holding that the plaintiff had a right to enter a caveat against the said property and that the caveat was rightly registered;

(3)    prima facie the respondent's caveat is earlier in time to the right of the appellants. It would therefore not be right for the caveat to be removed pending the result of the respondent's action.

我highlight重点，也希望读这tread的读者能明白。那么，derekting2u你觉得呢？

bobcat

回复 9# derekting2u


    Btw，你是在哪一行业的？Real estate lawyer？

bobcat

回复  bobcat
My friend, you must be confused. The court in Macon case held that the person have ca ...
derekting2u 发表于 5-11-2010 10:35 AM

    在section 10 of contract act 1950,

What agreements are contracts

10. (1) All agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of parties competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object, and are not hereby expressly declared to be void.

(2) Nothing herein contained shall affect any law by which any contract is required to be made in writing or in the presence of witnesses, or any law relating to the registration of documents.

under contract act, LZ的contract是valid和enforceable by law。

bobcat

回复 12# derekting2u


    你的background是什么？纯粹想交个有legal background的网友罢了。

虎宝宝

地主没有loss, 他还多赚了10% of original selling price。赚了还要没收定金。这才是可恨。

bobcat

回复  bobcat
You must be confused again. May I refer you to Section 206 NLC.

Section 206. Need  ...
derekting2u 发表于 5-11-2010 12:22 PM

    你肯定要有好像S&P的standard form of contract才能lodge private caveat? bespoke type of contract不能？为什么？lack of formality？

虎宝宝

回复  虎宝宝
If this is a case your friend should threaten the vendor with a Letter of Demand. How ...
derekting2u 发表于 5-11-2010 02:05 PM

现在怎样了就不是很确定，不过友人有讲过，地主想还30k订金，可是友人现在不想收了。他交给律师去办。因为selling price算是不小的数目。他觉得地主根本玩他笨。我不是专读法律的，不过contract不是从收订金生效吗？你觉得友人的胜算大吗？

bobcat

现在怎样了就不是很确定，不过友人有讲过，地主想还30k订金，可是友人现在不想收了。他交给律师去办。因为 ...
虎宝宝 发表于 5-11-2010 03:23 PM

    如果不收回30k，你朋友打算做什么？要地主卖给他？

虎宝宝

还有那信是有买家，卖家和证人的签名。价钱和title也列明。这样还不算contract吗？

虎宝宝

如果不收回30k，你朋友打算做什么？要地主卖给他？
bobcat 发表于 5-11-2010 03:25 PM

可以的话友人想买。不过和地主签了snp的那方也是不放。不晓得是不是这个问题，所以他们的snp是还没stamp的。可能stamp后不懂又有什么法律的问题。如果友人买不成，那天友人是讲要地主赔60k了事。可是现在就不懂了。刚开始友人只要他的30k,可是地主却处处为难。讲要没收。

bobcat

还有那信是有买家，卖家和证人的签名。价钱和title也列明。这样还不算contract吗？
虎宝宝 发表于 5-11-2010 03:25 PM

    我敢肯定是contract。是个法律上有效的contract。

bobcat

可以的话友人想买。不过和地主签了snp的那方也是不放。不晓得是不是这个问题，所以他们的snp是还没stamp的 ...
虎宝宝 发表于 5-11-2010 03:34 PM

    你朋友狮子开大口？不能claim 60k吧，有很多case都是allow forfeit "true deposit"，也就是你朋友给的那30k。但是你的朋友的case没有stated period。如果那地主有其他prospect，而那地主也打算卖给那个人，你朋友的确能claim another 60k。意思是说，这个30k就是这contract 的stipulated damages。谁breach of contract谁就赔这30k。

郭靖

楼住 ，快快去进caveat啦！不用听一大堆辩论啦。
人家问东，你们就辩西

bobcat

回复  bobcat
I am sorry if what I am about to say is offensive. You must be not legal educated! Le ...
derekting2u 发表于 5-11-2010 06:09 PM

    really? why what u said different with what salleh buang said? Does contract need formality? Diamon peak v. Tweedie, not so sure what is the case exact name and year, but is on federal court. the contract of sale of property done orally which allow by federal court. meaning to said that NLC not apply? If no SPA, merely a bespoke type of contract consider not proper instrument? study legal meaning to said that need to be legalistic? Sorry if u felt offensive on last sentence. are u fresh graduate? if u fresh graduate from LLB uk cert. then i understand that u really dunno Malaysian Torrens System.

if possible maybe u can explain what is the definition of proper instrument, does a letter which is a valid contract not consider as a proper instrument?

bobcat

回复  bobcat
OMG. I promise this will be my last reply to your absolute confusion or ignorance. Th ...
derekting2u 发表于 5-11-2010 10:35 PM

Pardon me for my if u felt offended. btw, i could be wrong, but u have to prove it. I have few question in regarding to this topic, i hope u can understand my question. And please don't delete since this is a forum which shall be share to anyone.   

Maybe i confuse, but it could be that u still don't wanna admit your misjudgment on the issue of LZ.
1st, u said that LZ have no caveatable interest. Base on MACON ENGINEERS SDN BHD V GOH HOOI YIN [1976] 2 MLJ 53, the FC judge allow the purchaser to lodge the private caveat, of course just like you say with the existence of SPA and the caveat lodge successfully even the period given for settlement was expired. Please take note that the private caveat already successfully lodge before this case been brought to court. This case brought to court by the appellant for the purpose of removing the caveat.

After that, u said that Macon case is because of the SPA, therefore the interest can be register. So my question is, why only SPA can register with interest? Does a valid contract of sale of land just like LZ case is not a proper instrument and thus cannot be register under NLC procedure? Is SPA is compulsory under NLC? Base on Macon case, the situation is the same with LZ case, just that LZ is not using SPA but a bespoke type of agreement.

Lastly please forgive me if u felt offensive toward my statement. I could be wrong, your reply is welcome, for we're here to seek the truth.