Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 23 views

    Dream Property V Atlas Housing

    Uploaded by

    jasfsldk
    This document summarizes two court cases: 1) Dream Property v Atlas Housing, where the court ruled that a property owner who benefited from improvements made to their land, such as a shopping mall, must provide restitution for the value of the enrichment, not just the construction costs. 2) Damansara Realty v Bungsar Hill, where the court found that without a fixed deadline, performance must still occur within a reasonable time frame, and whether consideration failed is a factual determination of if the project was still commercially viable after 13 years with little progress versus substantial completion. Anticipatory breach can be claimed if one party refuses or is unable to perform and breach is reasonably inevitable.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Dream Property V Atlas Housing

    Uploaded by

    jasfsldk
    23 views1 page
    This document summarizes two court cases: 1) Dream Property v Atlas Housing, where the court ruled that a property owner who benefited from improvements made to their land, such as a shopping mall, must provide restitution for the value of the enrichment, not just the construction costs. 2) Damansara Realty v Bungsar Hill, where the court found that without a fixed deadline, performance must still occur within a reasonable time frame, and whether consideration failed is a factual determination of if the project was still commercially viable after 13 years with little progress versus substantial completion. Anticipatory breach can be claimed if one party refuses or is unable to perform and breach is reasonably inevitable.

    Original Description:

    de

    Original Title

    Deux

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes two court cases: 1) Dream Property v Atlas Housing, where the court ruled that a property owner who benefited from improvements made to their land, such as a shopping mall, must provide restitution for the value of the enrichment, not just the construction costs. 2) Damansara Realty v Bungsar Hill, where the court found that without a fixed deadline, performance must still occur within a reasonable time frame, and whether consideration failed is a factual determination of if the project was still commercially viable after 13 years with little progress versus substantial completion. Anticipatory breach can be claimed if one party refuses or is unable to perform and breach is reasonably inevitable.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    23 views1 page

    Dream Property V Atlas Housing

    Uploaded by

    jasfsldk
    This document summarizes two court cases: 1) Dream Property v Atlas Housing, where the court ruled that a property owner who benefited from improvements made to their land, such as a shopping mall, must provide restitution for the value of the enrichment, not just the construction costs. 2) Damansara Realty v Bungsar Hill, where the court found that without a fixed deadline, performance must still occur within a reasonable time frame, and whether consideration failed is a factual determination of if the project was still commercially viable after 13 years with little progress versus substantial completion. Anticipatory breach can be claimed if one party refuses or is unable to perform and breach is reasonably inevitable.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Dream Property v Atlas Housing

     Benefits only if they have monetary value


     On the facts, what is required to be returned to P is not the land that P sold; but an
    enormously enhanced and improved asset in the form of a mall
     P had unquestionably benefitted even though it did not request for the mall to be
    constructed; should not be allowed to reap the windfall
     P can escape restitutionary relief by showing that there was a legal ground for receiving
    an enormously enhanced and improved asset
     Restitution means to restore the value received; not the mere cost of constructing the
    mall but the value of the enrichment including the planning permission, design and
    conceptual development, effort and experience, goodwill and brand name of the mall

    Damansara Realty v Bungsar Hill


     Where parties do not agree that time is of the essence, promisor is still obliged to
    perform his obligation within a reasonable time.
     Whether or not there has been a total failure of consideration is a question of fact;
    whether a reasonable and commercially sensible man would look upon the project of
    having little or no value. Distinguished Berjaya Times Square, as nothing had been
    done for 13 years; whereas in BTS, the project was substantially completed.
     Anticipatory breach is where a fixed and exact date has been set for performance; and
    one of the parties has indicated his refusal or displayed inability to perform his part of
    the bargain; where it becomes apparent that breach is inevitable; the innocent party
    may be entitled to anticipate the said default and terminate the contract
     The said inevitable breach need not be an absolute certainty; sufficient if on a
    reasonable and practical basis, the breach is anticipated.

    You might also like