Does a failure to complete justify forfeiture of a deposit? [electronic resource] an analysis of recent case law
Rider, Deborah
Does a failure to complete justify forfeiture of a deposit? an analysis of recent case law [electronic resource] - London PLA 2008
Discusses the case of Midill (97PL) Ltd v Park Lane Estates Ltd and another [2008] EWHC 18 (Ch), (see L143243). 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. As a result, the company lost their deposit. Summarises the background to the case and comments on the position prior to the Midill case. Comments on the case and considers whether the relevant provisions of the Law of Property Act 1925 can be avoided.
MIDILL (97PL) LTD V PARK LANE ESTATES LTD AND ANOTHER
OMAR V EL-WAKIL
UNIVERSAL CORPORATION V FIVE WAYS PROPERTIES LTD
TENNARO LTD V MAJORARCH LTD
ARIBISALA V ST JAMES HOMES (GROSVENOR DOCK) LTD
LAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925
England and Wales--1543-
Does a failure to complete justify forfeiture of a deposit? an analysis of recent case law [electronic resource] - London PLA 2008
Discusses the case of Midill (97PL) Ltd v Park Lane Estates Ltd and another [2008] EWHC 18 (Ch), (see L143243). 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. As a result, the company lost their deposit. Summarises the background to the case and comments on the position prior to the Midill case. Comments on the case and considers whether the relevant provisions of the Law of Property Act 1925 can be avoided.
MIDILL (97PL) LTD V PARK LANE ESTATES LTD AND ANOTHER
OMAR V EL-WAKIL
UNIVERSAL CORPORATION V FIVE WAYS PROPERTIES LTD
TENNARO LTD V MAJORARCH LTD
ARIBISALA V ST JAMES HOMES (GROSVENOR DOCK) LTD
LAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925
England and Wales--1543-