| THE deal for the $1.9 million house looked set to be signed, sealed and delivered.
Mr Kwa Cheng Song and Ms Karen Yeo had paid a $19,000 deposit for the option to buy the property from its owner, Mr Wong Seng Chak. But for unknown reasons, the sale fell through in November 2004. Mr Wong ended up keeping the $19,000 deposit. And the real estate agency, Realstar Property, which helped broker the deal, ended up with nothing. Had the sale gone through, it would have received a commission of $38,000 - 2 per cent of the sale price. Then, early last year, the same buyers approached Mr Wong through another agency to buy the same house. This time, the sale was completed. The other agency, Harvest Realty Consultants, collected a commission of only $9,300, or 0.5 per cent of the sale price of $1.86 million. This is lower than the industry standard of 1 per cent when the agency acts for the buyer. When Realstar learnt that the house had been sold to the same people involved in the original deal, it decided to take them to court. The company sued Mr Wong and the buyers for $47,175, of which $37,200 comprised the 2 per cent commission on the final sale price. It also asked for $9,975 from the $19,000 deposit that Mr Wong kept, claiming an earlier verbal agreement. However, the suit was dismissed last month. Court papers did not state how Realstar learnt that the sale was done through Harvest, but property agents said it is easy to find out via Singapore Land Authority's Integrated Land Information Service (Inlis) website. Mr Mark Foo, an agent, said it provides online searches on property ownership and information. VERBAL AGREEMENT Acting for Realstar, Mr Singa Retnam and Ms K Manickam of Rayney Wong & Eric Ng, said the agency and Mr Wong had agreed verbally to split the deposit should the sale fall through. But Ms Hui Choon Wai of Wee Swee Teow & Co, who represented Mr Wong, contended that if there was such an agreement, it was not in Realstar's statement of claim. Realstar's lawyers claimed the agency should be paid $37,200 because it had effected the sale by introducing the buyers to Mr Wong. Realstar also alleged that Mr Wong had colluded with the buyers to deprive it of its rightful commission. It added that by paying Harvest a lower commission, Mr Wong benefited as he got to keep more of the sale proceeds. In dismissing the suit, District Judge Thian Yee Sze said Realstar could not ask for the $9,975 from the $19,000 deposit. This was because the alleged agreement to pay this sum to Realstar was not mentioned in the statement of claim. It only said that Mr Wong had to give half the deposit to Realstar. District Judge Thian wrote in her judgment: 'The statement of claim should have the date of the alleged agreement, the names of all parties to it and whether it was made orally or in writing. 'Since Realstar's case was based on a breach of contract, the terms of the contract should also be set out in the statement of claim. 'The material fact that there was an oral agreement to pay this sum wasn't in the statement of claim.' The judge also noted that the purchase option was entered into between Mr Wong and the buyers. Given the circumstances, Realstar's claim for the percentage of the forfeited deposit had to fail. The judge also dismissed Realstar's claim for commission as the property was not sold through its efforts. Though Realstar had introduced the buyers to Mr Wong, the judge felt that was not the sole cause of the sale. Realstar's chief executive, Mr Wong Teck Keong, could not be reached for comment while Mr Wong declined to comment. | 
