rayuan sivil no: 02-39-2007 (w)

27. We therefore allow the intervener-plaintiffs’ appeal.
THE PLAINTIFFS’ APPEAL
12
28. It was on three grounds that the Court of Appeal found that there was
no concluded contract and set aside the orders of the High Court in favour
of the plaintiffs. Each of the three grounds gave rise to a leave-question, so
that there are three leave-questions.
Question 1
29. Question 1 is as follows:
“1. When a sale and purchase of land is by way of an
oral agreement and such transaction is done through
an option to purchase whether such an option to
purchase can be treated merely as evidence which
does not require to be specifically pleaded.”
30. We wish to say at the outset that it is clear to us that, on the evidence,
it was only on the second option dated 10 October 1988 that the plaintiffs
could base their claim against the six defendants. The option contained
sufficient essential terms for it, in ordinary circumstances, to become a
binding or absolute contract upon payment of the required sum by the due
date, whether or not a formal and elaborate sale and purchase agreement
was to follow.
31. The plaintiffs, however, in their brief seven-paragraph statement of
claim, did not plead the option as the basis of their claim but pleaded
instead an oral agreement of the same date and terms as to price and
payment of ten per cent of the total purchase price as in the option. This
may be seen in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the statement of claim. But there
was no evidence of any oral agreement. There was only the option, the