Rakyat Corp Sdn Bhd v Abd Naeeim bin Tarmiji
 4 MLJ 111
ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO 24–312 OF 2006
HIGH COURT (ALOR SETAR)
DECIDED-DATE-1: 24 APRIL 2008
MOHD SOFIAN J
Facts of the case.
On 21 March 2001, the defendant/purchaser entered into a sale and purchase agreement (‘SPA’) to purchase the land held under HS(D) 470/1985, Plot 468, Mukim Mergong, Kedah together with the house erected thereon (‘the land’) from the plaintiff/vendor. According to the SPA, the purchase price for the land was RM80,000 subject to the terms and conditions stipulated therein. The defendant paid the plaintiff RM16,000 as part payment of the purchase price and obtained end-financing to pay the balance of the purchase price. However the end-financing from the bank was only for the sum of RM52,000, leaving a balance of RM12,000, being the difference between the purchase price and the loan amount. In addition, according to the Third Schedule of the SPA on instalments, the defendant had to pay the sum of RM12,000 to the plaintiff before the bank released the loan amount of RM52,000. Despite several reminders, the defendant failed to make the progress payments. The defendant had also failed to settle the sum of RM12,000, despite receiving notices to settle the same. On 26 September 2001, the plaintiff sent the defendant a notice of claim for the sum of RM36,000. On 17 October 2001, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the SPA, the plaintiff was issued a notice of termination of the SPA to the defendant. On 2 February 2002, the defendant in his letter to the plaintiff conveyed his desire to continue with the purchase of the land and agreed to make payment of the differential sum of RM12,000 with the balance to be settled through a loan from a financial institution. However, the defendant neglected to meet his obligations resulting in the plaintiff issuing a second notice of termination on 18 March 2002. On 31 March 2002, the plaintiff learned that the defendant had entered a private caveat on the land. Hence this application by the plaintiff, to remove the defendant’s private caveat and for damages to be assessed for wrongful entry of the caveat. It was the plaintiff’s contention that the defendant had no caveatable interest on the land. The defendant in his affidavit had submitted that he had not neglected to pay the progress payment but that he had withheld the progress payment because the plaintiff had acted in breach of clause 12 of the SPA. The court had directed the parties to submit on the principles as stated in the case of Luggage Distributors (M) Sdn Bhd v Tan Hor Teng & Anor  1 MLJ 719 (Luggage Distributors).
Meanings of the underlined words.
|subject to||tertakluk kepada|
|the difference between the purchase price and the loan amount||perbezaan di antara harga belian dan jumlah pinjaman|
|the progress payments||bayaran berperingkat|
|failed to settle the sum of RM12,000||gagal.membayar jumlah RM12,000|
|notice of termination||notis pembatalan|
|had entered a private caveat||telah memasukkan kaveat persendirian|
|damages to be assessed||gantirugi untuk ditaksir|
|wrongful entry of the caveat||kemasukan kaveat yang salah|
|caveatable interest||kepentingan yang boleh kaveat|
|withheld the progress payment||menahan bayaran berperingkat|