Assisting Lawyers

Have a query? Call the Helpdesk
PII & RM: +603-2050 2001
BCM General Line: +603-2050 2050
Marsh Insurance Broker: 
     +603-2723 3241 /3388
Font size
  • small text
  • medium text
  • large text

Case Study: When It Rains It Pours

Danny Fenton of Messrs Fenton and Co (“IP”) acted for Jasmine, the purchaser in a conveyancing transaction to prepare the SPA. The vendor, Maddie was not represented but was assisted by her daughter and son-in law. After the deposit was paid to Maddie, Danny proceeded to present the Memorandum of Transfer to the land office.

After the Memorandum of Transfer was successfully presented, Maddie through her new solicitor elected to terminate the SPA and forfeit the deposit. Maddie’s solicitor also demanded Danny to return the title to Maddie and threatened to lodge a complaint against Danny with the Disciplinary Board should he fail to comply with the demand.

Jasmine insisted to continue on with the transaction and requested Danny to forward the balance purchase price to Maddie’s solicitor to complete the transaction. The balance purchase price was returned back. Jasmine intended to challenge the termination and instructed Danny to file a writ for specific performance.

Maddie, who was persistent with the termination decided to file a writ against Danny and the IP. Maddie alleged, inter alia, that Danny represented both the vendor and purchaser in the transaction. She also alleged that Danny breached the SPA for the failure to return the title and other relevant documents after the termination of SPA and in bad faith, presented the title for transfer without informing her despite the knowledge that the SPA had been terminated.
 
In reviewing the IP’s risk management processes to determine if their original Base Excess should be reinstated, the Insurer found the following:
  • The IP diligently used a comprehensive checklist.
  • The checklist clearly stated that the IP only acted on behalf of Jasmine, the purchaser.
  • The IP also kept track of all important dates of all processes in the transaction and as such was able to demonstrate that the presentation of the Memorandum of Transfer was not done in bad faith since they only received the termination notice from the vendor after it was presented at the land office.