Ong Keh Choo v Paul Huntington Bernardo: Dispute over Option to Purchase Agreement

In Ong Keh Choo v Paul Huntington Bernardo and Tran Hong Hanh, the High Court of Singapore addressed a dispute over an option to purchase agreement. Ong Keh Choo, a property agent, sued Paul Huntington Bernardo and Tran Hong Hanh, a married couple, for a cancelled cheque related to the purchase of a property. The defendants claimed that Ong misled them into issuing the cheque. Choo Han Teck J dismissed the plaintiff's claim, finding that there was no binding agreement between the parties and that the defendants were induced to give the cheque based on false representations.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiff's claim dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Property agent Ong Keh Choo sues Paul Huntington Bernardo and Tran Hong Hanh over a cancelled cheque for an option to purchase. The court dismissed the claim, finding no binding agreement.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Ong Keh ChooPlaintiffIndividualClaim dismissedLostEdwin Lee Peng Khoon, Ng Wei Ying
Paul Huntington BernardoDefendantIndividualWonWonN Sreenivasan, Claire Tan Kai Ning, Partheban s/o Pandiyan
Tran Hong HanhDefendantIndividualWonWonN Sreenivasan, Claire Tan Kai Ning, Partheban s/o Pandiyan

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Choo Han TeckJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Edwin Lee Peng KhoonEldan Law LLP
Ng Wei YingEldan Law LLP
N SreenivasanK&L Gates Straits Law Practice
Claire Tan Kai NingK&L Gates Straits Law Practice
Partheban s/o PandiyanK&L Gates Straits Law Practice

4. Facts

  1. Ong, a property agent, advertised her apartment for sale.
  2. Bernardo and Tran, a married couple, viewed the property on 7 October 2017.
  3. The defendants gave Ong a cheque for $316,000, which Ong claimed was for an option to purchase.
  4. The defendants later cancelled the cheque.
  5. The defendants claimed Ong misled them into giving the cheque, assuring them it was 'for show'.
  6. Ong did not disclose that she was the owner of the property.
  7. The option to purchase had unusual terms, including a 10% option fee and payment of the remaining 90% upon exercise of the option.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Ong Keh Choo v Paul Huntington Bernardo and another, Suit No 258 of 2018, [2019] SGHC 204

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Defendants viewed the property and handed a cheque to the plaintiff.
Bernardo filed a complaint with the Council of Estate Agents.
Trial began.
Trial concluded.
Judgment reserved.
Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Formation of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found that there was no binding agreement between the parties due to a lack of proper endorsement of the option document and misrepresentation by the plaintiff.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Offer
      • Acceptance
      • Misrepresentation
  2. Fraudulent Misrepresentation
    • Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff had fraudulently misled the defendants into thinking that the cheque was 'for show' and part of a normal process.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Real Estate Litigation

11. Industries

  • Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
No cited cases

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Bills of Exchange Act (Cap 23, 2004 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Option to Purchase
  • Misrepresentation
  • Cheque
  • Property Agent
  • Singapore Permanent Residents

15.2 Keywords

  • contract
  • option to purchase
  • misrepresentation
  • property
  • real estate

16. Subjects

  • Contract Law
  • Real Estate
  • Misrepresentation

17. Areas of Law

  • Contract Law
  • Real Estate Law