Eyestorm Limited v Hoptonacre Homes Ltd [electronic resource]
Eyestorm Limited v Hoptonacre Homes Ltd [electronic resource]
- 2007
[2007] EWCA Civ 1366, 3 December 2007. Appellant company (E) appealed against the rejection of its claim for damages for breach of contract and return of a deposit paid to developers (H). Agreement created whereby E would purchase the leases to a block of flats from H if it was unable to sub-let them after an agreed time, hoping to sell at a profit. The relationship broke down; E was unable to sublet any of the properties and witheld monies in an attempt to re-negotiate the agreement. H eventually rescinded the agreement (after marketing the properties independently) and witheld the deposit paid by E as forfeit. E stated that H was in breach of contract for marketing the flats independently and that H had prevented E gaining access to the properties for valuation purposes. Held: appeal dismissed as there was no identifiable legal basis for asserting that the respondent was in breach of contract. Even if such a breach could have been established, it would not have caused the appellant loss.
EYESTORM LTD V HOPTONACRE HOMES LTD
LAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925
LAW OF PROPERTY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 1989
PROSPER HOMES LTD V HAMBROS BANK EXECUTOR AND TRUSTEE CO LTD
MCCAUSLAND AND ANOTHER V DUNCAN LAWRIE LTD AND ANOTHER
OMAR V EL-WAKIL
TREGO V HUNT
YAXLEY V GOTTS AND ANOTHER
United Kingdom--
[2007] EWCA Civ 1366, 3 December 2007. Appellant company (E) appealed against the rejection of its claim for damages for breach of contract and return of a deposit paid to developers (H). Agreement created whereby E would purchase the leases to a block of flats from H if it was unable to sub-let them after an agreed time, hoping to sell at a profit. The relationship broke down; E was unable to sublet any of the properties and witheld monies in an attempt to re-negotiate the agreement. H eventually rescinded the agreement (after marketing the properties independently) and witheld the deposit paid by E as forfeit. E stated that H was in breach of contract for marketing the flats independently and that H had prevented E gaining access to the properties for valuation purposes. Held: appeal dismissed as there was no identifiable legal basis for asserting that the respondent was in breach of contract. Even if such a breach could have been established, it would not have caused the appellant loss.
EYESTORM LTD V HOPTONACRE HOMES LTD
LAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925
LAW OF PROPERTY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 1989
PROSPER HOMES LTD V HAMBROS BANK EXECUTOR AND TRUSTEE CO LTD
MCCAUSLAND AND ANOTHER V DUNCAN LAWRIE LTD AND ANOTHER
OMAR V EL-WAKIL
TREGO V HUNT
YAXLEY V GOTTS AND ANOTHER
United Kingdom--