Midill (97PL) Ltd v Park Lane Estates Ltd and another [electronic resource]
Language: English Publication details: 2008Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2008] EWHC 18 (Ch) 16 January 2008. The case was a reminder that a failure to complete will nearly always lead to a deposit being forfeited. The case concerned a company that had paid a deposit for the purchase of a property, but had not been ready, able or willing to complete. The claimant prospective buyer (M) claimed the return of the deposit and damages for breach of contract. Held: claim dismissed. The fact that the seller then sold the property to a third party at a higher price did not constitute a special circumstance such that the court should exercise its discretion and order the return of the deposit under the Law of Property Act 1925.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | Virtual Online | ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 143243-2001 |
[2008] EWHC 18 (Ch) 16 January 2008. The case was a reminder that a failure to complete will nearly always lead to a deposit being forfeited. The case concerned a company that had paid a deposit for the purchase of a property, but had not been ready, able or willing to complete. The claimant prospective buyer (M) claimed the return of the deposit and damages for breach of contract. Held: claim dismissed. The fact that the seller then sold the property to a third party at a higher price did not constitute a special circumstance such that the court should exercise its discretion and order the return of the deposit under the Law of Property Act 1925.