GOH AH CHAI @ GOH TOW SIM v TAN SEE SHIN

wa-22ncc-678-09-2023 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 14 October 2025 • WA-22NCC-678-09/2023 • 13 min read
2 cases cited (0 SG, 2 foreign)

Catchwords

had acknowledged receipt of the Purchase Price-under the heading “Satisfaction of the Purchase Price-No evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from the terms of a document-22. Based on sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act 1950, when the defendant had acknowledged receipt of the full Purchase Price in the SSA, he is not entitled to contradict the written words by asserting that he has not received the same-26. An acknowledgment of payment in Clause 2.3 (a) of the SSA is a form of admission under section 17 of the Evidence Act 1950-Admissions are the strongest evidence possible-If a man acknowledges that he has received the whole of the purchase money from the person to whom he transfers property, he voluntarily arms the purchaser with the means of dealing with the estate as the absolute legal and equitable owner, free from every shadow of encumbrance of adverse equity, and he cannot be heard to say that he has not in fact received the purchase money-Even where payment was never in fact received, the presence of the receipt clause would prevent the defendant from denying receipt of payment-a receipt clause would establish a convention between both parties, and hence the official trustee for the vendor was estopped by the said convention to recover the purchase price from the purchaser-If a person agrees to do what’s impossible in fact you have only to consider whether on the fair construction of the agreement he made himself liable to pay damages if he did not do it; but if a person binds himself to do what depends in the caprice of the third person he must suffer if he cannot get that third person to exercise his caprice in his favour.

Judges (1)

Leong Wai Hong Delivered

Counsel (7)

Amos Ho, Sew & Kiew Firm Vilasiny Gan & Co. Firm Amos Ho Counsel Plaintiff Gan Yi Yang Counsel Defendant Ivy Poo Counsel Plaintiff Sajanee Sukumaran Counsel Defendant Vilasiny Gannasen Counsel Defendant

Parties (2)

Goh Ah Chai @ Goh Tow Sim Plaintiff Tan See Shin Defendant

Statutes Cited

Evidence Act 1950 (Cap 56)
s 17

Cases Cited (2)

UK (1)
[2014] 2 WLR 84
MY (1)
[1994] 1 MLJ 740

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (wa-22ncc-678-09-2023)