Promissory Estoppel revisited Q8

Yuri paid RM10,000 to Roger who in return orally agreed to sell to Yuri his house for that sum. Roger refused to sell the house.

Advice Yuri.

(20 marks, 2014 Q8)

Similar question was asked in

2012 Q3

(Added 18.Jun.2015)
The existence of a contract depends on a few key elements of contract. One of which is consideration.

RM10,000 is consideration paid. Thus, there is contract between Roger and Yuri. The agreement was at arms length and there was no information if Yuri and Roger were close relatives, thus intention to create a contract was there. Yuri has paid RM10,000 and although there is no written agreement like SPA, oral agreement is as good as written agreement.

Now, Roger has refused to sell his house despite having received the consideration. This renders the contract being unable to perform. This is breach of contract on Roger's side.

Yuri can sue for breach of contract. Normally, the promise of a transaction in a contract cannot be denied, and this is also called promissory estoppel. In fact, even without consideration, a promise can still be a contract under Contract Act 1950. This is a distinct difference in Malaysian Contract Act 1950 compared to English Law.

There has been no other reasons that the contract cannot be fulfilled, example Act of God (frustration), or Mistake in Contract (voidable), and it is not illegal (otherwise void) to conduct such a transaction in the law of the local setting, hence Yuri can seek damage compensation from Roger. As there has been no other information provided in the question, the market practice of double or triple compensation may be taken as assumptions.

Roger has breached his contract of selling his house to Yuri, and thus liable to compensate Yuri at double or triple the amount paid, ie RM20,000 or RM30,000. And, if agreeable by Yuri, Roger is discharged of his obligation in this contract.

Own account.