地主可以没收定金吗？帮帮忙。

bobcat

Dear derekting2u, just like what u said in section 206, Need for proper instrument of dealing duly registered, why did u said that the dealing by bespoke type of agreement cannot be register? If macon case, the purchaser have caveatable interest, LZ will have caveatable interest too.

bobcat

回复  bobcat
The contract, if any, is valid!!! The problem is he/she cannot register the title or interest in land. If he/she cannot register the title or interest in the land this is because did not have legal or equitable interest in land. Therefore,  had no caveatable interest. Thus, cannot lodge caveat, unless, willing to liable for the (actual) damages of the vendor.
derekting2u 发表于 5-11-2010 10:35 PM

    i highlight your statement, do you read macon case? the purchaser with merely deposit of 17.5k consider having caveatable interest, so LZ case was the same, paid 30k, but u allege that LZ did not have legal or equitable interest in land?

bobcat

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
郭靖 发表于 5-11-2010 06:42 PM

    我有叫LZ去commence caveat吗。

虎宝宝

我有叫LZ去commence caveat吗。
bobcat 发表于 6-11-2010 12:41 AM

谢谢derekting2u and bobcat的热心协助。
友人已经拿回订金+20k的喝茶钱（地主讲请他喝茶）,还找人来和友人商量。然后地主快快要回他的信。听友人的律师讲， 好像是可以caveat让他和新买家做不成这场交易。地主让步可能是additional 10% selling price 的关系。

bobcat

谢谢derekting2u and bobcat的热心协助。
友人已经拿回订金+20k的喝茶钱（地主讲请他喝茶）,还找人来和友人商量。然后地主快快要回他的信。听友人的律师讲， 好像是可以caveat让他和新买家做不成这场交易。地主让步可能是additional 10% selling price 的关系。虎宝宝 发表于 6-11-2010 10:57 AM

    ic，你的定金加20k是代表你的朋友拿回50k？

虎宝宝

ic，你的定金加20k是代表你的朋友拿回50k？
bobcat 发表于 6-11-2010 11:25 AM

对，地主找人来谈的。友人才答应。不然就和他慢慢熬。
这样的地主也很没良心下，如果遇到没钱的，不是给地主吃着走。

bobcat

对，地主找人来谈的。友人才答应。不然就和他慢慢熬。
虎宝宝 发表于 6-11-2010 11:31 AM

    哇，天将横财啊。nice。btw，derekting2u 已经delete他的所有回复了，不知为什么？

derekting2u

谢谢derekting2u and bobcat的热心协助。
友人已经拿回订金+20k的喝茶钱（地主讲请他喝茶）,还找人来和友 ...
虎宝宝 发表于 6-11-2010 10:57 AM

不用客气，其实当你caveat别人的土地他们就不能够动用那土地。不能买卖，charge etc. 就如你说，应为地主要卖各其他人而且还多10% selling price。你朋友loan的时候bank the valuation report认为不值那价钱，可能地主也了解那地的真实value所以敢作卖。不过恭喜你朋友，记得以后土地买卖记得appoint自己的律师。有些钱不能省，请律师有问题就告他们。应为律师要买insurance,所以不用太过当心只拿到paper judgement。

bobcat

应为lz要的是Q&A.我跟你的conversation是 how the law operate. 以后你买land property记得不用valid agreement 和sign，paid the deposit 然后caveat 人家的地,不过当然不要pay remaing balance。等vendor要卖给别人但是应为你的caveat，然后不能卖，看court会remove 你的caveat吗。可能那时deposit 就可以有caveatable interest了。
derekting2u 发表于 6-11-2010 11:54 AM

    是吗？我是在argue that LZ是有caveatable interest。你allege没有interest可以register吗。谁会吃饱没事做搞这些caveat，你讲的情形就像你之前cite的那个kuching court case，2年from SPA date能毫不犹豫的remove 那个caveat。还有，我没说不用valid agreement，只是你的valid要有你所谓的formality，而法律上的valid agreement不需要你所说的formality, eg. SPA。

bobcat

回复 30# derekting2u


    btw，我想我知道你是谁了，不怪得对你的名字很熟啦，去年头或前年尾在HELP知道有个junior derek ting，是你吧。果然你是fresh graduate。

derekting2u

回复 32# bobcat
2 years ago, read law in HELP. Hopefully, you are not my senior.
You have to understand what we arguing so far, is there a valid agreement? A valid contract you simply must follow the formality. If not what you have is just a contract. Bespoke contract cannot be a valid contract, because I hope that you aware that S&P Agreement or (contract for sale of land) also need to stamping. To give effect the agreement to be valid.
First the Lz only said there was a letter and we didnt know the content. Latter, Lz clarify that it was sign by both party and also with the discription of title. At that point I belief what Lz mention possible is a contract for sales of land (as you prefer). But the only doubt now I have is it is stamping?     
Just now I type in chinese and is more detail but the d/c cause all the data loss and now damn lazy to explain to you. You can choose to belief what you want.
I will remove all my post because we are wasting the resources. If this give the impression that I am wrong, I dont f*cking care. If this made you proud or satisfy your ego, good for you.
Bye~

bobcat

2 years ago, read law in HELP. Hopefully, you are not my senior.
You have to understand what we arguing so far, is there a valid agreement? A valid contract you simply must follow the formality. If not what you have is just a contract. Bespoke contract cannot be a valid contract, because I hope that you aware that S&P Agreement or (contract for sale of land) also need to stamping. To give effect the agreement to be valid.
First the Lz only said there was a letter and we didnt know the content. Latter, Lz clarify that it was sign by both party and also with the discription of title. At that point I belief what Lz mention possible is a contract for sales of land (as you prefer). But the only doubt now I have is it is stamping?     
Just now I type in chinese and is more detail but the d/c cause all the data loss and now damn lazy to explain to you. You can choose to belief what you want.
I will remove all my post because we are wasting the resources. If this give the impression that I am wrong, I dont f*cking care. If this made you proud or satisfy your ego, good for you.
Bye~derekting2u 发表于 6-11-2010 12:52 PM

a valid agreement, just like i told u in section 10 of contract act, there're no need for register to be valid, eg. stamping. further more, would like to show u this case DIAMOND PEAK SDN BHD & ANOR V DR TWEEDIE [1982] 1 MLJ 97:

Gunn Chit Tuan J. allege that:
Under our law, as in India, an oral contract for the sale of immovable property is valid and enforceable. The mere fact that the parties desired to have that agreement put in writing and drawn up in proper form does not affect validity (see Shankar Lal Narayan Das v The New Mofussil Co Ltd AIR 1946 PC 97).

some summary of the case
HEADNOTES
The plaintiffs claimed specific performance of an oral agreement whereby the defendant had agreed to sell the 2nd plaintiff his land on certain terms. Alternatively the plaintiffs claimed specific performance of an agreement embodied in an exchange of letters culminating with a letter from the defendant who wrote that he was delighted that it was the plaintiff who was buying the land and that "the technical details" he would leave to his lawyers. In the further alternative the plaintiffs claimed a contract as set out in an engrossed agreement sent by the plaintiffs' solicitors to the defendant's solicitors on March 13, 1978.

Held:
(1)   that on a balance of probabilities the plaintiffs had established an oral contract as claimed;
(2)   alternatively that there was a completed agreement sent out in the 4 copies of agreement of sale which had been sent by the plaintiffs' solicitors to the defendant's solicitors together with their letter of March 13, 1978;
(3)   the facts of this case did not support the inference that the parties intended to be bound only when a formal agreement had been executed.


Therefore your definition of "valid agreement" is contradicted with what the court said. Of course if u said i'm wrong, u got to prove it, with decided case or whatsoever thing. Cannot merely allege what within your comtemplation.

bobcat

回复  虎宝宝


    楼主，想要跟你确定一些东西，你的朋友的agreement，你确定不是SPA？只是一张普通的合约？

bobcat

回复 31# derekting2u


    i hope u can type detail to clear my doubt. of course i could be wrong. u're welcome to correct me.

derekting2u

回复 34# bobcat

Okay, maybe I need to be clear with my point. Apply your case to our situation, we have a contract.
I never dispute that.

Perhaps, this may be a bit clearer to you, a valid executed agreement. You can have a contract, but this is nothing more than that unless and until you execute the agreement. In normal contract, we sign the agreement. In term of land transaction we not only sign but we also stamping the agreement to execute the contract for sales of land. Hope you can see the different.

Like I said, Lz at the beginning does not disclose whether the letter is a S&P or just not aware of it. This is because; Lz is not the party in the transaction. Merely is a third party outside the land transaction. (Her friend is the party in the transaction, what the info. She had is just what her friend told her. She takes it on face value)

“The mere fact that the parties desired to have that agreement put in writing and drawn up in proper form does not affect validity”, in this passage, what it mean was, even if the agreement is not in writing the contract between vendor and purchaser is still exist. If purchaser wants to enforce the right, they can pray to the court for specific performance. This is because existence of a contract.

S.10 also made the similar point.
Even, if you did not stamping your S&P. No problem, you still have a contract. But had the contract for sales of land, duly executed? Only when you had executed a contract for sales of land, you will have an equitable interest in land. The equitable interest in land, allow you to have a covetable interest in land.

Without execution of the sale of land contract, you only have a contract but not an interest in land.

I had explained many times to you. I don’t dispute there may be an existence of a contract. Perhaps, is because I don’t really bother to think when I saw your reply. Therefore, it may be confusing to you and have difficulties to understand my point.

You may argue that, I am just covering my misjudgment.
I don’t denial it is possible that I may make some mistake. You just have to understand that in real world, we don’t simply sue people because we had a contract and they breach it. We sue when we not only have a contract but also an executed contract, of course they must breach the contract provision. Just because the contract is not executed, does not render the facts that there is an contract.

Without stamping, the contract will not be void as an illegal contract. This is when the s.10 CA will steps in. You have a contract, but just it is not executed. That the reason why we apply for specific performance. So the contract can be executed.

Basically, I just repeat everything again and again just because you don’t understand does not mean I am wrong. I really had no talent to further clarify this matter. I shall rest my case.

derekting2u

a valid agreement, just like i told u in section 10 of contract act, there're no need for regist ...
bobcat 发表于 6-11-2010 01:12 PM

You cant just copy and paste to cite a particular passage to support your point and mislead the arguement. The case should be read as, Yes there is a contract (the oral contract had been proof). The vendor cannot said there is no contract unless and untill it was executed. This is because, the party already had an intention to bound by the oral agreement.
Most of your confusion is arise as a result you misunderstanding the judgement. I can't do anything about it. What the cases and Act. is correct and In fact there is no conflict. All the dispute between us was you misinterprate the law, if not , maybe you just in absolute denial mode.

bobcat

回复  bobcat
Okay, maybe I need to be clear with my point. Apply your case to our situation, we ha ...
derekting2u 发表于 6-11-2010 02:28 PM

    what u wanna interpret here is that the land office will not be able to register the caveat by an informal agreement? eg. 1 pc of paper consist of agreement term without stamping.

correct me if i'm wrong..

derekting2u

what u wanna interpret here is that the land office will not be able to register the cavea ...
bobcat 发表于 6-11-2010 04:04 PM

No, as mention ealier, anyone can caveat other people land. The land office is only an administrative body. So long as you fill up the form 19B for the application For Entry of a Private Caveat and pay the prescribe fees. There will be a caveat on the said land. The problem is that, when the owener of the land want to sell the land, he can't because there is a caveat on his land. In this situation, he can apply to the court or registrar to remove the caveat. Like the case, you cite ealier. If this go to the court, the court will apply the luggage distributors case, to determine whether the caveat was valid enter. If it is not, the court will grant an order to remove the caveat. The owner than can take the judgement to the land office to remove the caveat. This is not discretionary.
When I said, no caveatable interest cannot lodge a caveat, it mean, if the caveat wrongfully enter and the owner suffer loss (he must prove the actual loss), the caveator will be liable for the damages.

When there is no a valid contract (i.e. S&P must be signed and stamped), this does not give you an equitable interest in land. At this stage, nontheless, have a contract. However, contract alone does not grant an equaitable interest in land. This the reason why you can't or be more specific you should not lodge a caveat.

All you have to remember, NLC will only give you more than an equitable right or contract, when you register, or at least capable being register.

alexseowky

恭喜!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

kaiyet

呵呵~~有幸在两位junior的一来一往中学到东西~~果然后浪推前浪~前浪死在沙滩上~~呵呵~