{"id":7346,"date":"2026-01-05T16:10:14","date_gmt":"2026-01-05T08:10:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/shooklin.com.my\/cn\/?p=7346"},"modified":"2026-01-05T16:10:14","modified_gmt":"2026-01-05T08:10:14","slug":"%e5%8f%91%e5%b1%95%e5%95%86%e4%b8%8e%e4%b9%b0%e5%ae%b6%e8%af%b7%e6%b3%a8%e6%84%8f%ef%bc%9a-%e8%b0%a8%e9%98%b2%e4%b8%ad%e4%bb%8b%e7%9a%84%e9%99%88%e8%bf%b0%e8%ae%a9%e6%82%a8%e4%bb%98%e5%87%ba%e4%bb%a3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/shooklin.com.my\/cn\/legal-updates\/%e5%8f%91%e5%b1%95%e5%95%86%e4%b8%8e%e4%b9%b0%e5%ae%b6%e8%af%b7%e6%b3%a8%e6%84%8f%ef%bc%9a-%e8%b0%a8%e9%98%b2%e4%b8%ad%e4%bb%8b%e7%9a%84%e9%99%88%e8%bf%b0%e8%ae%a9%e6%82%a8%e4%bb%98%e5%87%ba%e4%bb%a3\/","title":{"rendered":"\u53d1\u5c55\u5546\u4e0e\u4e70\u5bb6\u8bf7\u6ce8\u610f\uff1a \u8c28\u9632\u4e2d\u4ecb\u7684\u9648\u8ff0\u8ba9\u60a8\u4ed8\u51fa\u4ee3\u4ef7"},"content":{"rendered":"

3 December 2025<\/strong><\/p>\n

DEVELOPERS AND PURCHASERS BEWARE:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Don\u2019t Let Agents\u2019 Representations Cost You<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Developers \u2013 Even if your contract says, \u201c<\/em>No party shall represent themselves as an agent of the other party<\/em>\u201d, it may not<\/u> shield you from liability.<\/p>\n

Purchasers \u2013 Even if representations are made by agents on behalf of the developer, it may not<\/u> always be safe to rely on them.<\/p>\n

Recently, in I-Marcom Sdn Bhd v. Resham Singh a\/l Naranjan Singh & Ors<\/u><\/em> [2025] MLJU 2923; [2025] CLJU 2328<\/strong>, the Court of Appeal held a developer liable for RM1.65 million in rental losses over 5 years for 4 condominium units, arising from the purchasers\u2019 reliance on representations of a \u2018Guarantee Rental Return Scheme<\/em>\u2019 made by a marketing executive of a company, even though the developer\u2019s contract with the company expressly prohibited its employees from acting as the developer\u2019s agent.<\/p>\n

(A) Brief Background<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. The appellant was a developer (\u201cDeveloper<\/strong>\u201d) of a high-end condominium project known as 8 Kia Peng Project at Kuala Lumpur (\u201cProject<\/strong>\u201d).<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
      \n
    1. The respondent was a purchaser (\u201cPurchaser<\/strong>\u201d) of 4 condominium units. 4 separate Sale and Purchase Agreements (\u201cSPAs<\/strong>\u201d) were executed for the units by the Purchaser and his family (his wife, daughter, and sons) (collectively, the \u201cParties<\/strong>\u201d).<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
        \n
      1. The events leading to the dispute began when the Purchaser, who was searching for condominium units near the Kuala Lumpur City Centre (\u201cKLCC<\/strong>\u201d) for himself and his family, was invited by an estate agent he had known for over 15 years (\u201cBeh<\/strong>\u201d) to the sale launch of the Project, during which he was introduced to a marketing executive (\u201cLim<\/strong>\u201d) from a company presented as the exclusive marketing agent for the Project (\u201cTE<\/strong>\u201d).<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
          \n
        1. The dispute subsequently arose when Lim (the marketing executive from TE) made several representations to the Parties concerning the Developer\u2019s purported \u2018Guarantee Rental Return Scheme<\/em><\/strong>\u2019 (\u201cGRR Scheme<\/strong>\u201d). In essence, Lim represented that (a) the Developer is offering a GRR Scheme, (b) the purchase price of the units is slightly higher than the prevailing market price because the Developer had agreed to provide the GRR Scheme to interested purchasers, and (c) under the GRR Scheme, purchasers will receive a guaranteed return of 5% per annum calculated based on the purchase price, for a period of 5 years commencing from the date vacant possession is delivered (collectively, \u201crepresentations<\/strong>\u201d). Induced by these representations, the Purchaser purchased 4 condominium units and paid the total sum of RM120,000.00 to the Developer as part payment of the purchase price, with the SPAs executed by the Parties accordingly in 2015.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
            \n
          1. By 2020, vacant possession was finally to be delivered to the Parties. However, upon receiving a letter from one of the Parties informing the Developer to honour the representations, the Developer replied stating, among others<\/em>, that it had no knowledge of the GRR Scheme for the Project, had not entered into any GRR Scheme with any purchasers, and had not consented, agreed, or authorised TE to enter into any GRR Scheme with any purchasers (\u201cLetter from the Developer<\/strong>\u201d).<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

            (B) Three Critical Issues<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

              \n
            1. This article focuses on three key issues that was determined in the appeal which developers and purchasers should be aware of:<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

              (a) Whether Lim and\/or TE was an agent of the Developer;
              \n(b) Whether the GRR Scheme was illegal; and
              \n(c) Whether the purported representations were binding on the Developer.<\/p>\n

              (C) What the Court of Appeal Decided<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

                \n
              1. Issue (a) \u2013 <\/em>Affirmative<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                Essentially, the Court held that Lim and\/or TE was the Developer\u2019s agent<\/strong> based on the Developer\u2019s conduct<\/u> surrounding the following documents<\/u>:<\/p>\n