Ojelay v Neosale Ltd
Ojelay v Neosale Ltd
- 1987
- Estates Gazette 283(6352) 19 September 1987, 1391-1395(3) .
CA 8 April 1987. An appeal by Neosale(N) - the vendor, against a decision granting specific performance of a written agreement for the sale of a freehold property by N to the plaintiff(O) - the purchaser. The issue concerned a deposit of 10,000 to be paid by O to the vendor`s agent, which N asserted had not been paid. The facts, briefly were that N complained they had not received the deposit and O asserted that it had been paid to the vendor`s agent. The matter seemed resolved. However, cheques made out to N by the agent were dishonoured, and N refused to complete without payment of a fresh 10,000. The agent went bankrupt, and in proceedings which followed, judgment was given in favour of O. N appealed, submitting a deposit paid to the agent should have been treated as paid conditionally on being actually handed to N or their solicitors, on the footing that it was an implied term of the contract that such handing over would take place. CA held that this submission was as a matter of
CA 8 April 1987. An appeal by Neosale(N) - the vendor, against a decision granting specific performance of a written agreement for the sale of a freehold property by N to the plaintiff(O) - the purchaser. The issue concerned a deposit of 10,000 to be paid by O to the vendor`s agent, which N asserted had not been paid. The facts, briefly were that N complained they had not received the deposit and O asserted that it had been paid to the vendor`s agent. The matter seemed resolved. However, cheques made out to N by the agent were dishonoured, and N refused to complete without payment of a fresh 10,000. The agent went bankrupt, and in proceedings which followed, judgment was given in favour of O. N appealed, submitting a deposit paid to the agent should have been treated as paid conditionally on being actually handed to N or their solicitors, on the footing that it was an implied term of the contract that such handing over would take place. CA held that this submission was as a matter of