Backdating agreements english law
This notice was prescribed for the purpose of regulating residential property loans.The Judge held that the said option was enforceable at the instance of the Respondents.3 As we shall see, the present appeal necessitates the consideration of the applicable legal principles in relation to one of the most confused (and confusing) areas in the common law of contract – that of illegality and public policy.On 25 October 2012, the Respondents’ solicitors unsuccessfully attempted to exercise the Option at the offices of the Appellant’s solicitors.
If, from the plaintiff’s own stating or otherwise, the cause of action appears to arise ex turpi causa, or the transgression of a positive law of this country, there the Court says he has no right to be assisted.
It is upon that ground the court goes; not for the sake of the defendant, but because they will not lend their aid to such a plaintiff.
The Appellant also argued that the Respondents were not entitled to an order for specific performance because they had “unclean hands”.13 Conversely, the Respondents contended that the Option was valid and binding on the Appellant, since it was not illegal ) by voluntarily undertaking to perform the contract in full compliance with the 5 October Notice.14 The Judge held that the Option was valid and binding on the Appellant and granted the Respondents an order for specific performance of the Option.
The Judge considered that there was no statutory illegality since there was no express or implied legislative intention that the backdating of the Option would render it unenforceable.
One related to the applicability of the doctrine of This particular issue was mentioned but was not (correctly, in our view) pursued by counsel for the Respondents, Prof Tang Hang Wu (“Prof Tang”) (if nothing else, because the facts did not, in our view, permit such a doctrine to be invoked in the first place).
The other issue related to the Judge’s findings on specific performance.
So if the plaintiff and defendant were to change sides, and the defendant was to bring his action against the plaintiff, the latter would then have the advantage of it; for where both are equally in fault, potior est conditio defendentis.24 A court will therefore hold that a particular contract is void and unenforceable as being contrary to public policy because of the ”) at para 13.001): The topic of illegality and public policy constitutes perhaps the most complex area of the law of contract.
This is not surprising because the very concept of public policy is a very nebulous creature indeed.
Indeed, in this appeal, we would need to consider the legal principles with regard to not only statutory illegality but also illegality at common law.4 Before proceeding to set out the applicable legal principles as well as applying them to the facts of the present appeal, it would be appropriate – by way of background – to first set out the relevant facts, the decision of the Judge, the relevant issues which arise in the present appeal, as well as a summary of the parties’ respective cases.5 The Appellant is the sole owner of 30 Jalan Angin Laut Singapore 489226 (“the Property”). In October 2012, the Appellant granted the Respondents an option to purchase the Property (“the Option”), which was backdated to 4 October 2012.6 Around mid-2012, the Respondents were interested in purchasing a landed property and approached their banker at United Overseas Bank (“the Bank”), Mr Leslie Ong (“Ong”), about the financing of such a purchase.Tags: Adult Dating, affair dating, sex dating