Mohamed Ali v Tan Ah Bee: Specific Performance of Option to Purchase for Property

In Mohamed Ali s/o Abdul Razak v Tan Ah Bee, the High Court of Singapore, on 9 December 2009, ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Mohamed Ali, ordering specific performance of an option to purchase a property. The court found that the option was validly exercised, despite the defendant, Tan Ah Bee's, attempt to return the option cheque and the existence of a time condition in the commission agreement, to which the plaintiff was not a party. The plaintiff brought a claim for specific performance of the option.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment reserved.

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court ordered specific performance of an option to purchase a property, finding the option valid despite the grantor's attempt to return the option cheque.

1.7 Decision Date

8 December 2009

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Mohamed Ali s/o Abdul Razak	Plaintiff	Individual	Judgment for Plaintiff	Won	Alvin Chia of Hilborne & Co R Narayanan of Hilborne & Co
Tan Ah Bee	Defendant	Individual	Specific performance ordered	Lost	Patrick Chin of Chin Patrick & Co

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Philip Pillai	Judicial Commissioner	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Alvin Chia	Hilborne & Co
R Narayanan	Hilborne & Co
Patrick Chin	Chin Patrick & Co

4. Facts

Defendant granted Plaintiff an Option to Purchase for a property.
Defendant's brother, Eric Tan, managed the transaction on her behalf.
Phyllis Ng of Harvest Realty acted as the Defendant's agent.
Plaintiff delivered option money cheque to Phyllis Ng after 4 pm on 4 June 2009.
Eric Tan refused to accept the option cheque due to a time condition.
Defendant's solicitors returned the acceptance copy and balance payment.
The Option did not contain the time condition, but the Commission Agreement did.

5. Formal Citations

Mohamed Ali s/o Abdul Razak v Tan Ah Bee, Suit 568/2009, [2009] SGHC 279

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2009-01-01	Eric Tan placed sales advertisements for the Property
2009-02-08	Price reduced to S$1.45m
2009-05-12	Eric Tan placed sales advertisements for the Property
2009-05-26	Sales notices were placed by Phyllis Ng of Harvest Realty
2009-06-02	Sales notices were placed by Phyllis Ng of Harvest Realty
2009-06-03	Sales notices were placed by Phyllis Ng of Harvest Realty
2009-06-03	Plaintiff viewed the Property and offered S$1.27m
2009-06-04	Plaintiff sent sms to Phyllis Ng accepting offer price of S$1.3m
2009-06-04	Plaintiff handed Phyllis Ng cheque for S$13,000 and received signed Option
2009-06-06	Phyllis Ng informed Plaintiff that Eric Tan was refusing to accept the option cheque
2009-06-05	Cheque was hand delivered by Phyllis Ng to the Defendant
2009-06-08	Cheque was returned to Harvest Realty by registered post
2009-06-16	Plaintiff's solicitors sent Acceptance Copy and cheque for S$52,000 to Defendant's solicitors
2009-06-16	Abraham Low LLC returned letter and payment
2009-06-17	Plaintiff's solicitors sent letter marked “Exercise of Option” to the Defendant
2009-06-19	Defendant's solicitors returned cheque and documents to Plaintiff
2009-06-22	Plaintiff's solicitors replied to Defendant's solicitors
2009-09-11	Original date of completion
2009-12-09	Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

Validity of Option to Purchase
- Outcome: The court held that the option was valid and binding despite the return of the option cheque and the time condition in the commission agreement.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Effect of returning option cheque
  - Time condition in commission agreement
- Related Cases:
  - [1992] 2 SLR 342
  - [1993] 3 SLR 498
Exercise of Option
- Outcome: The court held that the exercise of the option was valid and binding, and the defendant could not frustrate the plaintiff's exercise of the option.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Valid tender of balance payable
  - Unilateral repudiation by option grantor
- Related Cases:
  - [1995] SLR 401
  - [1993] 3 SLR 129
Agent's Authority
- Outcome: The court held that the agent had apparent authority to exchange the option, and the plaintiff was not bound by the time condition in the commission agreement.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Apparent authority
  - Limitation of authority
- Related Cases:
  - [1995] QSC 67

8. Remedies Sought

Specific Performance
Damages
Interest

9. Cause of Actions

Specific Performance

10. Practice Areas

Real Estate Law
Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Wong Fook Heng v Amixco Asia Pte Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1992] 2 SLR 342	Singapore	Cited for the principle that tender of a cheque in exchange for the grant of an option is good tender for the payment of the option money.
Min Hong Auto Supply Pte Ltd v Loh Chun Seng	N/A	Yes	[1993] 3 SLR 498	Singapore	Cited to support the argument that the return of the option cheque did not affect the binding legal effect of the option.
Re Coffey Bartel	N/A	Yes	[1995] QSC 67	N/A	Cited for the principle that a principal is bound to a third party who has no knowledge of any limitation of authority of the agent.
Aldrich Development Pte Ltd v Rafiq Jumabhoy	N/A	Yes	[1995] SLR 401	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a unilateral repudiation by the Option grantor which is not accepted by the Option grantee, results in the option surviving and being exercisable in accordance with its terms.
Tai Joon Lan v Yun Ai Chin	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1993] 3 SLR 129	Singapore	Cited for the principle that courts will not allow vendors to take advantage of their own breach of contract but would undo the advantage gained by treating the purported exercise of the option as valid and compel the performance of the contract for the sale and purchase of the property.
Tai Joon Lan v Yun Ai Chin	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1993] SGCA 54	Singapore	Cited for the principle that courts will not allow vendors to take advantage of their own breach of contract but would undo the advantage gained by treating the purported exercise of the option as valid and compel the performance of the contract for the sale and purchase of the property.
Lim Bok Kek v Ken Thiam Siew	N/A	Yes	[1994] SGHC 45	Singapore	Cited for the principle that specific performance is an equitable remedy and the court in deciding whether to grant such relief is entitled to look at the conduct of the parties.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Option to Purchase
Specific Performance
Time Condition
Commission Agreement
Option Money
Agent's Authority
Exercise of Option

15.2 Keywords

Option to Purchase
Specific Performance
Property
Singapore
Contract Law

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Option to Purchase	95
Specific performance	90
Contract Law	90
Property Law	70

16. Subjects

Contract Law
Real Estate
Property Law