THE PALACE OF JUSTICE CIVIL APPEAL NO. P-02-2074-2011 ...
THE PALACE OF JUSTICE CIVIL APPEAL NO. P-02-2074-2011 ...
THE PALACE OF JUSTICE CIVIL APPEAL NO. P-02-2074-2011 ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
there is no undue delay on the part of the developer (Merger<br />
Acceptance) in obtaining the CFOs from the local authority, MPSP.<br />
The plaintiffs, as purchasers, had entered into a contractual<br />
relationship with the developer, Merger Acceptance, and the latter is<br />
contractually obliged under clause 7.03 of the SPA to ensure that the<br />
CFO is obtained without undue delay. Therefore, should there be any<br />
undue delay in obtaining the CFO, due to some carelessness or<br />
blunder or omission on the part of the developer or its agents (the<br />
defendants, being the developer’s architects, are the agents of the<br />
developer), the plaintiffs’/purchasers’ only remedy, in our view, is to<br />
sue the developer for breach of contract or for negligence, and not to<br />
sue the defendants/architects, who have no contractual relationship<br />
with the plaintiffs/purchasers, by attempting to invoke the law of<br />
negligence. If the defendants/architects were careless or negligent in<br />
carrying out their duties resulting in a delay in the issuance of the<br />
CFO, it is to the developer that they should be answerable; and not to<br />
the plaintiffs/purchasers. The defendants/architects were not<br />
appointed by the plaintiffs/purchasers; nor were they agents of the<br />
plaintiffs/purchasers. The defendants/architects were appointed by<br />
the developer, and they were the agents of the developer. They<br />
36