JCW

[striking out – purchaser sued developer based on an allegation that his unit had been “substituted” with another unit] Justin and Alvin acted for the defendant in this case and successfully struck out the plaintiff’s claim. The High Court held that the plaintiff’s claim ought to be struck out under Order 18 rule 19 (1) of the Rules of Court 2012. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant had unilaterally and without the plaintiff’s knowledge unlawfully changed and/or substituted the parcel with a different unit ie LG-29. The plaintiff insisted for LG-30 not LG-29 for reasons that the notice of delivery of vacant possession dated 8 October 2009 was issued to the plaintiff in respect of LG-30 and the plaintiff took possession of LG-30 only. The certificate of fitness was also duly issued to the plaintiff for LG-30 and not any other units. On the other hand the defendant explained that the parcel described as LG-30 in the SPA had been relocated and re-designated as LG-29 due to the amendment to the building plan on 4 August 2009 and was approved by MPSJ. Based on the amended building plan, the original location of the LG-30 had been replaced by ‘Switch & Meter Room’ and the staircase. The location of LG-29 on the amended building plan is the nearest and next to the original location with the similar size of the parcel was allocated to the plaintiff. The Court is of the view that such amendment and substitution of LG-30 by the defendant was meant for an expedient and necessary purpose since the building plan had been approved by MPSJ and the original LG-30 is no longer in existence since it had already been replaced by ‘Switch & Meter Room’ and staircase and cannot be used anymore for the parcel. Therefore based on cl 10.1 the building plan is subject to any amendments, variations, modifications and adjustment the position of LG-30 would include changing of its position and permits the defendant to substitute the plaintiff’s unit to another unit. Therefore, such amendment and substitution was meant for ‘expedient or necessary’ purpose and does not amounts to an unjust enrichment by the defendant or otherwise to benefit the defendant by giving ownership of LG-30 to the defendant. Based on the above clear terms, the defendant has a right to amend, vary, substitute, reconstruct and/or in any manner deal with the parcel unit without the need to seek consent from the plaintiff. On the same footing the plaintiff shall accept any changes, variation, modification and any adjustment of the parcel as the position and description of the parcel are not guaranteed to be correct. It is settled law that parties are bound by the terms of the contract that they have entered into. In the present case, the Court held that defendant has fulfilled its contractual obligation under the contract by giving LG-29 with almost similar size to the plaintiff after the building plan has been amended subsequent to the signing of the SPA.