Blog Series: Deceit, Counterclaims, and Subsale Particulars Part 2: Subsale Particulars and Counterclaims

 

This post discusses general legal principles and case law for public education. It does not allege misconduct by any specific individual or party. All examples are illustrative only, and factual determinations remain the responsibility of the courts.

Part 2: Subsale Particulars and Counterclaims

📌 The Role of Subsales

In property disputes, subsale transaction files are often produced to challenge valuations. For credibility, subsales must reflect current transactions, not those from 5–6 years ago. Outdated or fabricated entries distort market value and undermine trust.

 

⚠️ Examples of Questionable Particulars

Courts scrutinize subsale files closely when they contain discrepancies such as:

 

Transactions attributed to individuals who were deceased at the time.

 

Sale/purchase dates that do not match the actual transaction history (e.g., a 2013 sale recorded as 2020).

 

Values stated far below current market price, used to dispute buy‑back requests.

 

Reliance on old subsales instead of current market transactions.

 

🧭 Application of Case Law

Under Panatron, intentional misrepresentation in subsale files cannot be excused by blaming purchasers for not verifying.

 

Under Tong Chen, victims are entitled to rely on representations without double‑checking.

 

Together, these cases show that fabricated or outdated subsales cannot shield parties from liability if deceit is proven.

 

💡 Why This Matters

When developers or purchasers dispute valuations — for example, in buy‑back requests at current market prices — subsale particulars must be accurate and current. Fraudulent or outdated entries may amount to deceit. Courts will not allow fraudsters to shift responsibility onto purchasers, and damages flow directly from the misrepresentation.

 

Disclaimer applies.