Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 323 views

    Wisma Sime Darby SDN BHD V Wilson Parking (M) SDN BHD: Prepared By: Nurul Atilia Shahira Zulkifli

    Uploaded by

    shahiraaz
    The respondents operated a car park owned by the appellants under an agreement that contained an option clause allowing the respondents to request a new 3-year tenancy 3 months before the expiration of the existing term at a rent to be agreed. The respondents notified their intention to exercise the option but did not specify the rental. When the appellants invited offers, the respondents submitted one that was not accepted. The respondents argued their prior notification concluded a new 3-year tenancy, but the appellants disputed this. The case considers whether a concluded agreement existed and the validity of the option clause.

    Copyright:

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

    Wisma Sime Darby SDN BHD V Wilson Parking (M) SDN BHD: Prepared By: Nurul Atilia Shahira Zulkifli

    Uploaded by

    shahiraaz
    323 views3 pages
    The respondents operated a car park owned by the appellants under an agreement that contained an option clause allowing the respondents to request a new 3-year tenancy 3 months before the expiration of the existing term at a rent to be agreed. The respondents notified their intention to exercise the option but did not specify the rental. When the appellants invited offers, the respondents submitted one that was not accepted. The respondents argued their prior notification concluded a new 3-year tenancy, but the appellants disputed this. The case considers whether a concluded agreement existed and the validity of the option clause.

    Original Description:

    land dealings

    Original Title

    Wisma Sime Darby

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The respondents operated a car park owned by the appellants under an agreement that contained an option clause allowing the respondents to request a new 3-year tenancy 3 months before the expiration of the existing term at a rent to be agreed. The respondents notified their intention to exercise the option but did not specify the rental. When the appellants invited offers, the respondents submitted one that was not accepted. The respondents argued their prior notification concluded a new 3-year tenancy, but the appellants disputed this. The case considers whether a concluded agreement existed and the validity of the option clause.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    323 views3 pages

    Wisma Sime Darby SDN BHD V Wilson Parking (M) SDN BHD: Prepared By: Nurul Atilia Shahira Zulkifli

    Uploaded by

    shahiraaz
    The respondents operated a car park owned by the appellants under an agreement that contained an option clause allowing the respondents to request a new 3-year tenancy 3 months before the expiration of the existing term at a rent to be agreed. The respondents notified their intention to exercise the option but did not specify the rental. When the appellants invited offers, the respondents submitted one that was not accepted. The respondents argued their prior notification concluded a new 3-year tenancy, but the appellants disputed this. The case considers whether a concluded agreement existed and the validity of the option clause.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Wisma Sime Darby Sdn Bhd

    v
    Wilson Parking (M) Sdn Bhd
    Prepared by:
    Nurul Atilia
    Shahira Zulkifli
    Facts of the Case
    The respondents occupied and operated a car park owned by the appellants
    Option clause in the agreement:
    The appellants shall, on the written request of the respondents made 3
    months before the expiration of the existing term, grant a tenancy of the
    premises for a further term of 3 years from the expiration of the term at
    a rent to be agreed.
    Respondents gave notice in writing within stipulated period of their
    intention to exercise the option to renew the tenancy but did not mention
    the rental for the proposed new term.
    Only until the appellant made an invitation to make an offer in competition
    with others who had been invited to tender did the respondents make an
    offer.
    Their tender was not accepted and the existing lease was extended for 2
    months for them to vacate.
    However, the respondents took the view that because they had exercised
    the option clause within the required time, there was a concluded tenancy
    agreement for another 3 years.
    Issues
    Was there a concluded agreement?
    Is the option clause valid?

    You might also like