www.shaproperty.com

WHAT is a view worth? Exactly $15,000, according to a lawsuit that concluded this week.

The courts had to grapple with this prickly question recently after a group of 16 home buyers at the Fortune Jade condominium in Dunman Road sued the developer for not delivering the panoramic view it had promised.

On Thursday, after a two-year saga said to be the first legal case of its kind here, the buyers won and the developer, Fortune Realty, was ordered to pay up.

At the heart of the dispute was the size of the master bedroom window in 34 of the condo's corner units. Buyers said they were enticed by the showflat and floor plans that featured a large ceiling-to-floor window running the entire length of one wall, promising expansive views of the city skyline as well as the sea.

But when they received their keys in early 2004, that was not what they got. In fact, the bedroom windows had shrunk to nearly half their showroom size.

Said Mr Jason Ng, 41, who bought a unit on the 14th floor: 'I was attracted by how open and spacious the master bedroom was. Then I move in and it's cramped like an HDB flat.'

Complaints were lodged and a letter came from the developer explaining that it had changed the plans from a nine-panel window to a five-panel one because it 'received numerous feedback from prospective buyers that they prefer to have more wall space'.

Owners were offered two options: reinstate the missing windows - only if all 34 agree - or accept a one-time $4,000 payoff.

Eighteen owners accepted the offer, but the move angered 16 owners, who felt the developer had cheated them by failing to consult them before making the changes.

They asked for $15,000. Fortune Realty would not offer more than $7,000, so in December that year, the buyers commenced legal proceedings.

By April last year, Fortune Realty admitted that it had breached the contract, but the tricky part of deciding how much that breach was worth was just beginning.

Both sides roped in experts, valuers and architects to prescribe a dollar value to the missing four panels' worth of view.

Not surprisingly, experts on both sides offered wildly differing values.

Those commissioned by the owners said the lost view had cheapened the apartments by between $32,000 and $97,000. Those commissioned by the developers placed that figure between $500 and $1,700.

To the shock of the owners, the courts sided with the developer. In fact, since the final award was lower than the amount the developer was originally prepared to settle on, the owners were asked to pay Fortune Realty's legal fees.

Said Mr Victor Chang, 43, who owns a unit on the third floor: 'Our morale hit rock bottom. They were the ones that made the mistake, yet we had to pay them.'

Through their lawyers Mr Andrew Tan Tiong Gee and Mrs Anna Tan, they appealed, attacking the admissibility of the valuation offered by the developer's experts. This week, Justice Kan Ting Chiu ruled in their favour.

For the buyers, the decision is a vindication.

Said Mr Chang: 'It was never about the money. We needed to do this to show developers that they cannot just do whatever they want.'

Another resident, Mrs Sim Hwee See, 53, agreed: 'It's the principle of the thing. We are really relieved that it's finally over.'

And while Mr Ng shares the sentiments of his neighbours, he cannot get over what has happened.

'If I could get a full refund for this flat, I'd take it. We may have won, but I still have to live with the developer's mistake every day.'

jeremyau@sph.com.sg