Midill (97PL) Ltd v Park Lane Estates Ltd and another [electronic resource]
Midill (97PL) Ltd v Park Lane Estates Ltd and another [electronic resource]
- 2008
[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.
MIDILL (97PL) LTD V PARK LANE ESTATES LTD AND ANOTHER
STANDARD CONDITIONS OF SALE
OMAR V EL-WAKIL
LAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925
England and Wales
[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.
MIDILL (97PL) LTD V PARK LANE ESTATES LTD AND ANOTHER
STANDARD CONDITIONS OF SALE
OMAR V EL-WAKIL
LAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925
England and Wales