Grossman v Hooper
Series: Estates Gazette Law Reports ; [2001] 27 EG 135-139(5)Publication details: 2001Subject(s): Summary: CA 11 April 2001. The parties lived together as man and wife for several years. In 1986 a property was purchased in the sole name of the appellant H. The respondent G was jointly liable, as borrower under the mortgage, and had contributed to the purchase price. In 1996 their relationship ended and the appellant moved out. In December 1996 they signed an agreement for H to transfer the property to the respondent. G brought proceedings against H trying to enforce the agreement. H argued the agreement did not incorporate all the terms agreed by the parties under the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 s2 and so was unenforceable. One term was an agreement by G to discharge a loan to H. It was decided that the additional term was a collateral transaction and the transfer of property was ordered. H appealed. "Held", the appeal was dismissed.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS64302 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 113913-1001 |
CA 11 April 2001. The parties lived together as man and wife for several years. In 1986 a property was purchased in the sole name of the appellant H. The respondent G was jointly liable, as borrower under the mortgage, and had contributed to the purchase price. In 1996 their relationship ended and the appellant moved out. In December 1996 they signed an agreement for H to transfer the property to the respondent. G brought proceedings against H trying to enforce the agreement. H argued the agreement did not incorporate all the terms agreed by the parties under the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 s2 and so was unenforceable. One term was an agreement by G to discharge a loan to H. It was decided that the additional term was a collateral transaction and the transfer of property was ordered. H appealed. "Held", the appeal was dismissed.