|
|
发表于 12-7-2011 00:03:57|来自：新加坡
|
显示全部楼层
楼主本帖刚出，多数人包括我自己就觉得楼主认了算了。但经过good99的深入研究，认为发现了OTP上的漏洞，让楼主和关心楼主的网友们产生了希望。ratemouse和seanjin以大家公认的严谨态度找到了案件1和案件2的文章。good99认为，法官的5点判词中的3,4和5点成为楼主如果打官司就能胜诉的重要依据。认为买主只要在期限内签了OTP（接受卖主的offer）并附上支票就算成功执行了OTP，即使支票跳票在期限过后也算执行了OTP。所以，楼主还有一争。争论由此展开。是非曲直各位自己判断。判词（或叫法官宣判前的最后陈述？）第3,4和5点如下：
(3) there was a binding contract of sale as there was nothing in the terms of the option which expressly or impliedly stated that the contract of sale would not come into existence at all unless the said cheque of S$47,000 was honoured upon its presentation for payment. The plaintiff had complied with the relevant term in the option in respect of exercising the option by having signed the acceptance form and delivering the said form together with the cheque for S$47,000 to the solicitors for the defendant and HTM; (4) having regard to the authorities referred to and the practice in England where the parties exchange contracts for the sale of land whereas in Singapore the parties use options for the sale of land, the provision in the option for payment of the deposit was not a condition precedent to the formation of a contract. It was a fundamental term of a contract that was concluded when the plaintiff exercised the said option to purchase the property under the terms stated therein, a breach of which entitled the vendor, if he so elects, to treat the contract as at an end and to sue for damages including the amount of the unpaid deposit; (5) although the contract of sale did not have a term which states that the property was sold subject to the bank's approval and that the contract would be null and void if the approval is not given, the defendant and HTM were not entitled to elect the contract as at an end on 7 March 1985.
|
|
IP卡
狗仔卡
显身卡
