1. Case:
Caltex oil (Malaya)Ltd
v. Ho Lai Yoke & Anor
Prepared by :
Fahru Azwa Bin Mohd Zain ( 027490)
Prepared for:
Sir Muhammad A. Zamani

2.  On March 26, 1961, the vendor YFC and HHC
granted to the plaintiffs an option to purchase a
parcel of land made up of Lot Nos.145, 3 and
165.
 Lot 3 was state land which had been approved by
the Collector of Land Revenue to the vendors.
 Lot 165 was acquired on October 12, 1961.
 On September 22, 1961,the plaintiffs receive the
option and requested the vendors to deliver
document of title and registrable transfers in
exchange for the check $3350 for deposited.
 The vendors called at the office of the
plaintiffs solicitors but produced no
document of tittle

3.  On October 12, 1961, the plaintiffs took back
their cheque but paid a similar sum to their
solicitors to be paid out to the vendors when
the ownership details were satisfactorily
settle.
 On the same day the vendors solicitor wrote
to the plaintiffs solicitors informing them
that the vendors had purchased Lot 165 from
the beneficial owner and requested the
plaintiffs to pay 90% of the purchase price in
advance.
 On October 21, 1961 the vendors applied to
the collector for variation of the express
condition attached to the alienated portion
of lot 3.

4.  Upon the collector refusing this on April 7,
1962, the vendors solicitors wrote to the
plaintiffs solicitors conveying the information
and concluded by requesting an advance
payment.
 on May 8, 1962 the vendors solicitors wrote
to the plaintiffs solicitors that the vendors
considerate the agreement to be at the end.
 The plaintiffs claimed specific performance
of the contract.

5.  LAWYERS:
- D. G. Rawson for the plaintiffs
- N. A. Marjoribanks for the defendants
 JUDGEMENT BY :
 Ong J.
 LEGISLATION REFERRED TO:
 Contract act 1950-section 52
 Specific Relief Act 1950-section 11

6. PERFORMANCE OF RECIPROCAL PROMISES
UNDER SECTION 52 :
When a contract consists of reciprocal promises to be
simultaneously performed, no promisor need perform his
promise unless the promise is ready and willing to perform
his reciprocal promise

7.  Ong J. of the high court held that certain
clauses in an option agreement to purchase a
parcel of land were reciprocal promises intended
to be simultaneously performed within the
meaning of section 52, and in the absence of
express terms to the contrary, it was a well
establish practice that in a contract for the sale
and purchase of land, payment not a condition
precedent to execution or transfer. The plaintiffs
wee allowed specific performance of the contract,
and the defendan contention that the plaintiffs
had defaulted in payment was rejected.

8.  In fact, the court found that non-
payment of the agreed sum was entirely due
to the default of the defendan being unable
to perform their part of the contract and
that the sum of money was ready and
available at all times for payment to the
defendants upon their production of the
relevant document of title, which they failed
to do.

9. Agree with the court’s decision because:
 plaintiffs was ready and willing to pay to the
defendant but the defendant produce no
document tittle. Based on section 25
plaintiffs will pay when the defendant is
ready and willing to produce document title.
 Specific performance for defendant to
continue the agreement because executing a
proper registrable transfer and being the
portion market and delineated in the plan
attached to the agreement.